[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1186-1200]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1415
NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION AND ABORTION INSURANCE FULL DISCLOSURE 
                              ACT OF 2017

  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 55, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  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 2017''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

            TITLE I--PROHIBITING FEDERALLY FUNDED ABORTIONS

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

          TITLE II--APPLICATION UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

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

            TITLE I--PROHIBITING FEDERALLY FUNDED ABORTIONS

     SEC. 101. PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS.

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

           ``CHAPTER 4--PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS

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

     ``Sec. 301. Prohibition on funding for abortions

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

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

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

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

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

     ``Sec. 304. Construction relating to separate coverage

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

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

       ``Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting 
     the ability of any non-

[[Page 1187]]

     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 an 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, 2017, 
     but only with respect to plan years beginning after such 
     date, and the amendment made by subsection (b) shall apply to 
     plan years beginning after such date.

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

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 55, the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) and the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include any extraneous material on H.R. 7, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in strong support of the No Taxpayer Funding for 
Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, and I thank the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his unflinching leadership on 
this issue.
  It was just a week ago that groups of women marched in the streets of 
D.C.

[[Page 1188]]

and other cities across the country apparently ready to write off this 
Presidency as it just began.
  There were millions of pro-life women who were explicitly told that 
they were unwelcome at this event. So today, the people's House is 
giving them and the more than 60 percent of Americans from all 
political persuasions who oppose taxpayer funding of abortions a voice.
  The legislation before us will protect Americans' conscience rights 
by ensuring that their hard-earned tax dollars are not used to fund the 
destruction of innocent life. That is a principle that Members of both 
parties have supported in this Chamber before.
  Every year, Democrats and Republicans alike have come together to 
support funding bills that maintain the law called the Hyde amendment, 
which prohibits the direct Federal funding of abortion, with limited 
exceptions. This 40-year-old law has saved an estimated 2 million 
lives, but it is not permanent, meaning that this time-honored 
protection could be taken away on a whim. What is more, the law, in its 
current form, has clear loopholes.
  A 2014 GAO study found that taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies could 
be used to pay for abortions on over 1,000 ObamaCare plans nationwide. 
That is why today we have the opportunity to make this life-affirming 
law permanent and governmentwide.
  As a mother, a grandmother, and a nurse for more than 40 years, this 
measure is especially meaningful to me. During my years in the 
healthcare industry, I saw the joy in young parents' eyes when they met 
their newborn for the very first time. I held the hands of grieving 
spouses and children as they said good-bye to their 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. I pray that in time this truth will be reflected in our 
Nation's laws. Until then, can't we at least do this much.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and 
Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, our constituents are looking to this Congress to 
address the economy, jobs, our crumbling infrastructure, and so many 
other issues. But despite these pressing needs, the only substantive 
bill this House is considering this week is a bill restricting a 
woman's ability to get a full range of healthcare services and a bill, 
which passed before in this House and that we know is going nowhere in 
the other body.
  Its title alone must be part of the majority's new plan to redefine 
facts. As we heard the other day, we now apparently have in our 
discourse ``alternative facts.''
  This bill takes that to a whole new level, and let me tell you why. 
The bill is called the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion 
Insurance Full Disclosure Act. But under current law, under the Hyde 
amendment--which I hate, which I will do everything to repeal--we have 
no taxpayer funding for abortion. Taxpayer funds are currently 
prohibited from use for abortions. Instead, what this bill does is it 
takes that concept and it uses it to far expand a restriction on a 
woman's ability to get the full health care that she needs.
  Let me talk about what this bill does exactly. First of all, it 
codifies the Hyde amendment into statute, which has never been done in 
this Nation's history.
  Secondly, it codifies a ban on abortions in D.C., even when they are 
done with D.C.'s taxpayer money and not with Federal money.
  Number three, it codifies the Helms amendment, which denies women 
abroad access to safe abortion care by severely restricting the use of 
U.S. funds to pay for healthcare services in developing countries.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
  It severely restricts abortion coverage in the ACA's exchanges by 
forbidding people who have plans where they get subsidies from paying 
for plans with their own money. This is a far expansion of a 
restriction on a woman's right to get her own health insurance with her 
own money.
  It denies insurance-related tax credits to small businesses that 
choose plans that offer abortion services. It permanently bans abortion 
services for Federal employees and it codifies a ban on abortion 
coverage for women in military services overseas.
  The fact that we are debating this today, just 1 day after President 
Trump issued an executive order reinstating the global gag rule, is a 
slap in the face to the over 3 million women who marched last weekend.
  Let's vote ``no'' on this bill and let's go to the business that the 
American public really cares about.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the chair of the Judiciary Committee 
and a longstanding supporter of pro-life.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her ardent 
work on this important cause.
  However stark Americans' differences 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 the House and Senate 
that was composed overwhelmingly of Democratic members. It has been 
renewed each appropriations cycle with few changes for over 40 years, 
supported by Congresses controlled 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 U.S. Code.
  H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance 
Full Disclosure 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 and as we now have a President who supports this legislation, 
let's reflect on what could be accomplished if the bill we consider 
today were signed into law.
  During the time the Hyde amendment has been in place, the most 
reliable estimates--and those of the Congressional Budget Office--are 
that millions of innocent children and their mothers have been spared 
the horrors of abortion. Millions of lives have been saved. And of 
those millions of lives saved, many more have grown up to bear their 
own children and to raise them in happy, loving families.
  This bill is more than a proposed law. It is a celebration of the 
lives of those millions of Americans--boys and girls, men and women of 
all races--who give joy and feel love and create and contribute all 
because of the policies this bill contains. And even more than that, 
this bill is a welcome sign for millions and millions more Americans to 
come.
  I congratulate the President for already reinstating the Mexico City 
policy, which prohibits the Federal funding of abortions overseas. And 
I look forward to his signing this bill into law to codify the same 
policy here in America.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7.
  We are only 10 days into this 115th Congress, and already Republicans 
are bringing legislation to the floor to harm women's health. It is 
clear that House Republicans do not respect

[[Page 1189]]

women and our ability to make our own decisions.
  Millions of women peacefully marched in cities around the country and 
around the world, yet here we are, once again, voting legislation to 
give politicians more control over women's bodies than they have of 
their own.
  Let's be clear: the ultimate goal of this bill is to effectively 
eliminate access to abortions, even when women pay for it themselves. 
Seven in ten Americans believe that abortions should be safe and legal. 
And just as we have seen in Texas, when women lose access to abortion, 
they will take drastic action to seek back-alley abortions or to self-
abort.
  Let's remember that Roe v. Wade was not the beginning of women having 
abortions. It was the end of women dying from abortions.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mrs. NOEM. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7, the No 
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure 
Act.
  Specifically, this bill says directly that Federal taxpayer dollars 
could not be used to provide abortions. It does not do more than that. 
What it does is it puts into statute a permanency to legislation that 
has annually been renewed.
  Becoming a parent was something that my husband and I always dreamed 
about. And when we did realize that we were having our first child, we 
prayed for her and we prayed for our future children, recognizing that 
they were a gift from God and that that life was to be protected even 
from the moment of conception.
  That is the belief that I have, and my hope and my dream for everyone 
here in America is that we would recognize that those children are a 
gift from God to us to protect, to keep, and to make sure that they are 
brought into this world safely and helped from thereon. My perspective 
and my profound commitment to protecting unborn children is why I am 
standing here today.
  Time and again, Congress has risen with bipartisan support to oppose 
taxpayer-funded abortions. Annual provisions, including the Hyde 
amendment, have been passed repeatedly; and they have been estimated to 
save over 2 million innocent lives. Our goal here is to save even more. 
We need to make these provisions permanent.
  ObamaCare has allowed the tax dollars of hardworking Americans to 
flow to over 1,000 abortion-covering health plans. This has made 
today's bipartisan legislation more important than ever.
  H.R. 7 would create a permanent governmentwide prohibition against 
Federal dollars to fund abortive procedures. It would also ensure the 
Affordable Care Act complies with the Hyde amendment until it is 
repealed and replaced. That is the right thing to do.

                              {time}  1430

  Today we stand to make sure that every single life is valued, not 
just the ones that we pick and choose for political reasons; that every 
single one that God has created has an opportunity to live out their 
dreams here in the United States of America.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
and for her tireless work and leadership on behalf of women's health.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7. This 
discriminatory bill would undermine a woman's access to abortion care, 
which is a constitutional right as affirmed by Roe v. Wade, 44 years 
ago, by making the Hyde amendment permanent. This bill would restrict 
access to reproductive health care for millions of women and 
disproportionately harm low-income women and women of color.
  As if this isn't enough, H.R. 7 comes on the heels of a dramatic 
expansion of the global gag rule which denies lifesaving health care to 
women around the world; not to mention continuous Republican attacks on 
contraceptive access, comprehensive sex education, and Planned 
Parenthood.
  Madam Speaker, when I was a staffer on Capitol Hill when the Hyde 
amendment was passed, I remember the days very clearly of back-alley 
abortions.
  Clearly, Republicans are trying to take us back to the days when 
women died from unsafe abortions in this country.
  That is why I offered an amendment that would have recognized that 
women--not employers or politicians--have the right to make their own 
reproductive health choices.
  Shamefully, the Rules Committee refused to make it in order and allow 
for a debate.
  Madam Speaker, women should be able to make their own decisions about 
reproductive health care, including abortions, without Members of 
Congress or employers interfering.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I referenced in my opening remarks that 
there has been bipartisan support for this measure, the Hyde amendment, 
on a yearly basis. I just want to make mention that the former 
gentlewoman from California who just spoke did vote for this measure in 
the fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill.
  Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the sponsor of the bill and is a 
champion for the unborn. It is really an honor for me to have served 
with him on this particular issue.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I want to first thank the 
distinguished gentlewoman, my good friend Diane Black, for her 
extraordinary leadership. I also want to say to my colleagues--and I 
hope this really is accepted for the profound change that it 
underscores--the Hyde amendment has saved 2 million lives; 2 million 
survivors who would have died had Medicaid funding for abortion not 
been available.
  This is over the course of 40 years, but 2 million lives, some of 
whom are 39, 38. It is about 60,000 children every year. And if you 
look at where this comes from, much of the mega-analysis comes from a 
peer review done by the Guttmacher Institute in 2009. They have found 
that there is a 25 percent reduction in Medicaid abortions when 
Medicaid money is not available to effectuate the dismemberment and the 
chemical poisoning of an unborn child.
  Defense of the unborn child is a human rights issue of our time, 
Madam Speaker. We talk about the unborn child, we degrade them, we 
treat them as if they are tumors or warts to be excised rather than 
children growing, developing, and maturing.
  Ultrasound imaging, as we all know, has shattered the myth that 
somehow an unborn child is anything but human and alive. And I hope 
that the science, which is very readily available, catches up with the 
policy.
  This makes Hyde and all of the other amendments permanent. We know 
that every year we have an annual battle over several of those 
amendments. It also, finally, title II, takes out of ObamaCare the 
facilitation and the funding of abortion.
  When President Obama did his executive order in December of 2010, he 
said that the Hyde amendment would be applied to the ObamaCare 
exchanges. For months and years after that in-House debate, people have 
said that has happened. It did not. We know beyond any reasonable 
doubt--and we enlisted GAO to look at that--well over 1,000 plans pay 
for abortion on demand in the ObamaCare exchanges.
  So that got the votes the pro-life Democrats needed to effectuate the 
passage of the Affordable Care Act. But, frankly, it hasn't happened. 
Title II of this bill says the Hyde amendment will be applied to the 
ObamaCare exchanges. Had that been done faithfully by the President, 
there would be no need for title II of this bill.
  I remember when the President stood right there in September of 2009 
and said: Under our plan, no taxpayer funding will be used to pay for 
abortion. Absolutely untrue. This language in H.R. 7 makes that true. 
We don't want to be complicit in the killing and the maiming of unborn 
children. As we know now, beyond any reasonable doubt, post-abortive 
women increasingly are coming forward and speaking out, those 
especially who found peace and reconciliation to say abortion also 
hurts women.

[[Page 1190]]

  There are two victims in every abortion: mother and baby. Two million 
lives saved. That is what we should be all about, life affirming and 
the saving of human rights.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), one of our new Members.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. 
This weekend, millions of women made it clear that they demand respect.
  Instead, for their efforts, they have received a trip to 1984 where, 
once again, a paternalistic White House signed executive orders 
infringing on a woman's right to choose.
  H.R. 7, the bill we are considering here today, is the next notch in 
the Republican belt that will take away our control over our own 
bodies.
  I have years of experience working in family planning, and I can tell 
you that this bill takes away our ability to plan our families properly 
and to make decisions about our own bodies, a decision that should be 
left to a woman and her physician.
  Make no mistake, this isn't a healthcare issue. It is part of an 
extreme rightwing political agenda that puts women's rights on the 
chopping block.
  H.R. 7 tells millions of women that their voices don't matter and 
their rights don't count. Passing this bill will create even more 
barriers for women, including women of color, trying to access quality 
health care.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided and heavy-handed bill.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Chair, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), one of my Ways and Means 
colleagues and a long-time supporter of pro-life.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I have got a prediction to make, and here 
is my prediction: In the course of this debate, the opponents of H.R. 7 
will not acknowledge nor give voice to Congressman Smith's claim of 
saving 2 million lives. Why? Because to acknowledge 2 million lives 
that are saved is to acknowledge the weakness of an argument; that is, 
those people are to be dismissed.
  Madam Speaker, how do you dismiss 2 million people? How do you 
dismiss 2 million people, over 60,000 people every year?
  If you can imagine what it would be like if someone came in here and 
with certainty, absolute confidence, said unambiguously, if you pass 
this law you are going to save 2 million lives, we would line up. We 
would be voting on that over and over and over again.
  And yet, my prediction is, during the remainder of this debate--
because we have not heard about it so far--the opponents will be silent 
about those 2 million lives.
  We need to vote for this and save lives in the future.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I want to answer his question with a 
question.
  Do you care about the 4 million children today that live off of less 
than $2 a day and live in extreme poverty and they are alive? No, you 
don't.
  Let me quote our Founding Father Samuel Adams. ``. . . freedom of 
thought and the right of private judgement in matters of conscience 
direct their course to this happy country. . . .''
  The First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the 14th Amendment, all 
sort of convene to this notion of rights of privacy in this country, 
except when it comes to women and their bodies.
  Republicans continue to wreak havoc for women's health, operating as 
if they have some sort of moral imperative to tell us. Get your laws 
off our bodies.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), who has been a longstanding 
supporter of life.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman 
Black for this bill. It seems like whenever we talk about this issue, 
we always talk past each other. But the real question before us is: 
Does abortion kill a little baby?
  If it doesn't, I am ready to quit talking about it. But if it does, 
then those of us sitting in the seat of freedom are also standing in 
the midst of the greatest human genocide in the history of humanity. 
And although we may not agree on all of the vicissitudes of abortion, 
one thing is certain: Some day, we, as a society, will look back, we 
will recognize the humanity of these little children of God and the 
inhumanity of what was being done to them, and we will regret these 
days.
  Until then, at least can't we get together and say that we shouldn't 
force taxpayers to pay for the killing of innocent little human beings?
  I pray that we can open our eyes to that truth.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Madam Speaker, on Saturday, millions of 
people took a stand against the assault on women's rights. Today, I 
stand with them once again to say we have had enough.
  Only 2 days after these historic marches, Republicans in Congress 
have introduced H.R. 7 to silence women by limiting their 
constitutional right to make personal choices about their reproductive 
health, without undue government interference.
  H.R. 7 is a woman's health catastrophe. Not only would it codify the 
discriminatory Hyde amendment, it would penalize employers who offer 
healthcare plans with comprehensive coverage and prevent the 80 percent 
of ACA enrollees who receive subsidies from purchasing plans that cover 
abortion services. In effect, it makes abortion an option only for the 
wealthy.
  The law of the land does not say that only some women have the right 
to choose; it says that all women have the right to choose.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless legislation.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I want to once again mention that there 
has been longstanding bipartisan support for the support of the Hyde 
amendment.
  As a matter of fact, the gentlewoman from California who just spoke 
voted for this on three different occasions; most recently in the MACRA 
that was passed in 2015; the omnibus, which was passed in December of 
2015 and also in December of 2016; and in the fiscal year 2017 CR.
  It is now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama 
(Mrs. Roby), a member of the Appropriations Committee and a strong 
supporter of pro-life.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for 
yielding me this time. Opponents of this bill are suggesting that we 
are against women's health care. What we are vehemently opposed to is 
the killing of innocent lives, innocent babies.

                              {time}  1445

  So let's call abortion abortion and be reminded that the one voice, 
Madam Speaker, not heard today is that of the baby. So it is my 
privilege, alongside my colleagues, to speak on behalf of those who are 
not here today to speak for themselves. No taxpayer dollars should ever 
go to fund abortions. This is a commonsense truth that even the most 
ardent pro-abortion activists have a hard time arguing.
  I am unapologetically pro-life, and it is no secret that I believe in 
stronger protections for unborn children under the law, but I also 
believe that we must assign greater respect for life within our 
society. That is why it is so important for Congress to make a 
statement, once and for all, that there is no place in the Federal 
budget for abortion funding.
  As an appropriator, I can tell you that the Hyde amendment has been 
indispensable to stopping funding for abortion throughout our 
government healthcare agencies. Now it is time to apply the same 
longstanding provision across the entire Federal Government.
  Madam Speaker, for my pro-life colleagues and me, fighting on behalf 
of

[[Page 1191]]

the unborn has been an uphill battle these last several years. The 
abortion industry's fierce allies in the Senate and the Obama 
administration have made sure that many worthy pro-life measures were 
defeated. However, with a unified Republican government, our hope is 
that our prospects have changed for the better. On just the second day 
of his Presidency, President Trump issued an executive order blocking 
Federal funding for international groups to provide or promote 
abortions. For the pro-life community, this long-overdue action was a 
welcome sign that the Trump administration will be a powerful ally in 
the fight for life.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, there are many policy improvements to 
pursue: reasonable limits on abortions after 5 months of pregnancy, 
stopping the shell game of title X funding at Planned Parenthood, 
improving access to adoption services, and more. But a great place to 
start is passing H.R. 7. It is our enduring responsibility to defend 
the unborn, and it is imperative we get this right.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from Tennessee has attempted to imply 
that several of our speakers today support the Hyde amendment because 
they voted for very large omnibus spending bills that included the Hyde 
amendment. I would like to be really clear that none of the speakers on 
this side today do support the Hyde amendment, and, in fact, in the 
last Congress we had a bill, the EACH Woman Act, sponsored by a number 
of us, 129 cosponsors, which would repeal the Hyde amendment. Sometimes 
people vote for large pieces of legislation because they do things like 
keep our government open and build highways and roads. But we will do 
everything in our power to repeal this poorly thought-out and 
regressive amendment, and we will do everything we can to defeat this 
bill today.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership.
  Madam Speaker, President Trump once said his favorite book is the 
Bible. I think he is writing a new book for the Bible called the 
``Apocalypse of Women.'' It is a reverse Genesis.
  In the beginning, he divided the country in half with rightwing dog 
whistles in his inaugural address. On the second day, he ignored 
millions of people who marched across America and the world. On the 
third day, he pondered changes to NAFTA and which women's rights to 
trade away. On the fourth day, he reinstated and expanded the global 
gag rule, risking women's lives worldwide. Today he and his House 
mouthpieces are blocking access to domestic reproductive health 
coverage trumpeting alternative facts about legal abortions that have 
been somehow prevented, some 2 million of them.
  Well, prove it.
  I shudder to think what will happen tomorrow, and I doubt on the 
seventh day it will be devoted to rest.
  Madam Speaker, we must fight this madness and oppose H.R. 7.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, my distinguished colleague said ``prove it'' about the 
2 million. Well, there is a very extensive study done by Michael J. 
New. The Review of Literature done in June of 2009 by the Guttmacher 
Institute found: ``Approximately one-fourth of women who would have had 
Medicaid-funded abortions instead gave birth when this funding was 
unavailable.''
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady), who is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. This bill is pro-
life, it is pro-family, and it is pro-taxpayer. I want to thank 
Representatives Chris Smith and Diane Black for their unwavering 
leadership in bringing this bill forward.
  Among other important actions, what I am excited about is this bill 
finally makes the Hyde amendment permanent. This important and 
longstanding policy prohibits taxpayer dollars from being used to fund 
abortions through Federal programs. For many years, it was the policy 
of America that, whether you were pro-choice or, as I am, strongly pro-
life, your taxpayer dollars would not be used for the controversial act 
of abortion.
  Taking this action now is especially important given that, under the 
Affordable Care Act, taxpayer-funded health insurance subsidies have 
been funneled toward health plans that do cover abortion services. The 
bill before us today will ensure that taxpayer dollars aren't used in 
any form to cover elective abortions. This policy will be permanent, 
and it will apply governmentwide, including to the Affordable Care Act.
  Right now, House Republicans are working to repeal this failed law 
and put in place a 21st century healthcare system Americans deserve. By 
passing this bill, we can also take immediate action to protect life 
and taxpayer dollars from the law's harmful impacts.
  For me, this is a family issue. My wife and I are proud parents of 
two adopted children. We have a family only because two women in two 
very difficult situations chose life. It is important that our 
government and the laws that represent us encourage those choices and 
encourage and protect innocent lives. This bill today takes such an 
important step forward.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank, again, Congressman Smith and 
Representative Diane Black for their leadership. I urge all my 
colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Colorado.
  Madam Speaker, for women to thrive in the economic and social 
opportunities of our Nation, we must have the ability to control our 
own reproductive lives with full access to real healthcare choices.
  Republican unrelenting efforts to force unwanted pregnancies and 
eradicate affordable, safe abortion will not save lives. Repealing the 
Affordable Care Act, defunding Planned Parenthood, and now driving 
insurance coverage for abortion into extinction will return women to 
the days of coat hanger medicine. Allowing women to be killed and 
maimed in back alleys is not pro-life. It will not make America great 
again.
  Women of America are on the march, and, Madam Speaker, we will not 
retreat.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, once again, I want to talk about the 
longstanding bipartisan support for the Hyde amendment. The gentlewoman 
from Florida has supported this measure in the omnibus bill and also 
the CR of 2017.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri 
(Mrs. Wagner), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee. She 
and her family have been fighting for pro-life issues for many, many, 
many years.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee, Diane Black, for her wonderful leadership 
on this issue along with Congressman Smith, also, for his wonderful 
leadership.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the No Taxpayer 
Funding for Abortion Act. The Hyde amendment has received bipartisan 
support for 40 years because it is a testimony to the freedom of 
conscience for all Americans and the dignity of the unborn.
  I am heartbroken that opposition to the amendment has become a 
political

[[Page 1192]]

gimmick. All human beings--the born, the unborn, the young, the old, 
the sick, and the healthy--are entitled to a government that promotes 
their dignity, their conscience, and their gift of life.
  This bill spells out Congress' commitment to all people--including 
children--across our Nation that the profits of Big Abortion should not 
be pilfered off the hard work of the American citizen. No tax dollar 
should be spent on the destruction of human life.
  In passing this bill and making the Hyde language permanent, we 
affirm that protecting children and mothers is our most precious duty 
as Members of Congress. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for 
life.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank Congresswoman DeGette 
for yielding the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7 and urge the 
Republican-led Congress to hear the voices of the millions who marched 
on Saturday who proclaimed that women's rights must be respected, 
including a woman's right to choose her own health care.
  I was part of that march, with many of my neighbors from Florida, to 
send a message to this Congress that our rights--our constitutional 
rights--must be preserved. Americans have a right to privacy, as we are 
reminded on this anniversary week of Roe v. Wade, but this Republican 
bill tramples on that right to privacy.
  Women, their families, and their doctors have the right to make their 
personal healthcare decisions, not the mostly male politicians in 
Washington. It is especially appalling that the Republicans have 
targeted female veterans and those that serve in the military for 
reduction in care.
  So, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this unconstitutional bill 
and encourage Americans to continue to lift their voices.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, once again, I want to say that there has 
been longstanding bipartisan support for the Hyde amendment, and the 
gentlewoman from Florida supported this measure back in 2015 on the 
H.R. 2 MACRA bill and the 2015 omnibus bill, H.R. 2029.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. 
Love).
  Mrs. LOVE. Madam Speaker, let's talk about what this is really about. 
This is about the loss of human lives.
  Each child potentially brings with him or her unique gifts and 
talents that can be used for the betterment of our society. An unborn 
child may be the doctor that cures cancer or Alzheimer's, may be the 
astronaut that lands us on Mars or the future leader that solves the 
problems of today. The list of our children's potential is infinite in 
value.
  Any time a child's life is lost, there is something more that is 
lost. It is a loss for us, it is a loss for our society, and it is a 
loss for our Nation. If you want to invest in our future, in the words 
of Henry Hyde: ``We cannot in logic or in conscience help fund the 
execution of these innocent, defenseless human lives.''
  A strong majority of Americans and a bipartisan majority in Congress 
opposes taxpayer-funded abortions. Because of this, there exists, 
currently, over 40 years of laws that prevent this practice. These laws 
have been deemed constitutional by the United States Supreme Court.
  So this is not about women's health. I want you to know very clearly 
that I support women's health. I support a healthy, organic, and open 
healthcare system that gives women more care than they currently 
receive today. What this bill does is codifies something that we 
already have. It ends the patchwork and establishes permanent 
protections for our children and the future of our society.
  I want you to know, Madam Speaker, that when I stand up and I meet 
with my Maker, I want you to know that I am not going to be ashamed. I 
am going to know that I stood up for the lives of these innocent 
children.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of our future, 
in favor of our unborn potential, and in favor of H.R. 7.

                              {time}  1500

  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  Mr. FOSTER. Madam Speaker, this weekend we saw millions of Americans 
march in cities and towns across the country and around the world--far 
more than attended the inauguration the day before.
  I joined the march in Chicago, where one of the most visible concerns 
was women's reproductive freedom. Today, House Republicans, roughly 90 
percent of them White males, responded by showing the women of America 
exactly how little they respect those rights.
  Madam Speaker, a party that lost the popular vote by almost 3 million 
votes does not have a mandate to deny women the right to make their own 
healthcare decisions.
  Perhaps I should remind my Republican colleagues that unless you are 
their doctor, they don't need your opinion. Women in the Federal 
workforce, low-income women, women in the military, women employed by 
small businesses are all perfectly capable of having a conversation 
with their doctor about their health.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill and ``no'' to 
disrespecting the women of America.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  Mr. YOHO. Madam Speaker, life begins at conception. I believe it is 
our responsibility to protect the millions of unborn children whose 
voices go unheard.
  As a Christian and a father of three, I believe the lives of all 
children, including the unborn, are just as important as yours or mine. 
That is why I stand here today in support of H.R. 7. This bill 
safeguards the lives of unborn children who are robbed of their 
opportunity to experience the marvels of life.
  H.R. 7 closes loopholes that have permitted the subsidization of 
abortions by taxpayers who are morally opposed to the practice. 
Additionally, this bill also requires insurance providers who receive 
Federal subsidies through participation in the healthcare exchanges to 
report to consumers whether or not they will be subject to a surcharge 
that covers abortion services at the time of purchase.
  It boggles the mind that our Federal Government had the arrogance to 
skirt longstanding laws in order to trick the American taxpayer into 
unknowingly contributing to abortions in the first place.
  This bill has passed the House numerous times. The merits of the bill 
are clear. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of H.R. 7.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, on Saturday, millions of Americans around the Nation 
spoke with a collective voice, opposing President Trump's plans to 
trample women's rights. Yet here we are, the first week of the new 
administration, voting on a bill to scale back women's health benefits.
  Let's be clear: this bill is not about preventing Federal funds from 
going to abortions. Sadly, current law already prevents that. In 
reality, this bill would affect millions of women who purchase coverage 
with their own money. It will make it nearly impossible for insurance 
providers to offer plans fully covering women's reproductive health. It 
would harm low-income women who need access to an abortion, turning 
back the clock on women's reproductive rights.
  It is day five of the Trump Presidency and women are already being 
attacked at every corner. I promise my colleagues this: the American 
people are watching. They will remember this vote.
  Vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I want to remind everyone of the 
longstanding bipartisan support for the Hyde amendment. The gentlewoman 
from New

[[Page 1193]]

York voted for this measure in the omnibus bill, H.R. 2029, in 2015, 
and then on the MACRA bill, also in 2015.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Russell).
  Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, the carving up and commercial sale of 
dismembered unborn children ranks as one of the most horrific and 
barbaric acts in American and human history.
  As an adoptive father, I speak today on behalf of the 55 million 
Americans that have had their lives brutally ended with the scalpel, 
the suction hose, and the callousness of the murderous culture that 
allows it to perpetuate.
  These Americans had a right to choose life that they did not want to 
lose. We have the ability to restore to future Americans that choice. 
Until that day, no American should be forced to end the life of an 
innocent human being with their tax dollars.
  We can carve up a child and call it a choice. We can destroy human 
life and call it health care. We can make the killing of children legal 
and pretend it is beneficial. We can cover acts of barbarity with the 
veneer of civility. But we cannot escape our accountability before the 
Creator of life.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The gentlewoman from Tennessee keeps saying over and over that 
different people voted for H.R. 2029 and, therefore, they must be for 
the Hyde amendment. I would like to point out that she herself voted 
against H.R. 2029. I guess maybe that means she is against the Hyde 
amendment since she voted against that bill.
  The point I am making is that all of us oppose the Hyde amendment. We 
are all cosponsoring the EACH Woman Act. Simply because you vote for or 
against a large omnibus bill does not mean you are necessarily in favor 
of or against the Hyde amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
(Mrs. Watson Coleman).
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  H.R. 7 will make permanent the harmful and discriminatory Hyde 
amendment, penalizing small businesses who want to provide 
comprehensive health coverage to their employees and, once again, 
trampling on the District of Columbia by prohibiting the District from 
spending its own local funds for abortion coverage.
  Yet again, the GOP has put our bodies and the choices we should get 
to make about them in the middle of a political firestorm. With every 
exhaustingly repetitive argument about when, how, and where a woman 
should be able to make those decisions, our country suffers.
  If my Republican colleagues are so concerned about the life of a 
child, why isn't there priority to put forth a plan for public 
education? Why haven't we seen a comprehensive plan to continue the job 
growth that President Barack Obama started?
  Their motives are transparent and I refuse to let this White House or 
any elected official play politics with women's bodies. As we continue 
down this dangerous road, today, tomorrow, and every day thereafter 
will be a day of resistance.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Mitchell) one of our newest Members.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the No Taxpayer 
Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, which 
I proudly cosponsored.
  Four years ago, my wife and I adopted a young child from an 
orphanage. People say it changed his life. It changed ours.
  This year, the theme of the March for Life is ``The Power of One,'' 
meaning that every single person can change the course of history if 
given the chance to live. Every year, 1 million unborn babies are 
stripped of the right to life, which our Declaration of Independence 
calls unalienable.
  Moreover, those opposed to abortion have been forced to violate their 
consciences through taxpayer-funded abortions. This legislation will 
reinforce a culture of life by making current prohibitions against 
taxpayer-funded abortions permanent.
  Madam Speaker, I stand in the spirit of ``The Power of One'' to give 
voice to the voiceless, rights back to the unborn, and I urge passage 
of this legislation.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 14\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, with H.R. 7, Republicans are again 
targeting American women's health care.
  This bill limits financial assistance in order to restrict women's 
choices in the health insurance marketplaces, forcing women and their 
families to select only certain plans. The goal is to restrict the 
ability of a woman to make her own choices.
  This bill comes up 1 day after President Trump reinstituted the 
Mexico rule. It prohibits U.S. foreign assistance to any organization 
which uses not those funds, but those from any other source for any 
activity related to abortion services.
  When I was Assistant Administrator of the AID in the late seventies, 
I led the highly organized effort that established a strict process for 
cordoning off any U.S. funds from any activity related to abortions, in 
violation of the Hyde amendment.
  What the Mexico rule means is that if any organization uses funds 
from any source related to abortion, it cannot receive any U.S. 
assistance, even if 99 percent of its activities related to women's 
health are totally unrelated to abortions and even programs in a nation 
where abortion is illegal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. The result will be the absence of health care for millions 
of women in our Nation, as H.R. 7 will result for millions of women in 
our Nation. We are seeing 48 hours of reckless disregard for women's 
health.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7, the No 
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure 
Act.
  Unfortunately, in our Nation, the most vulnerable and the most 
helpless lives amongst us have had their lives ended unceremoniously 
and tragically through abortion. Since 1973, 57 million lives have been 
lost to abortion. Even more disheartening, taxpayer dollars have been 
funding these abortions, despite the fact that polls show that 60 
percent of Americans believe that abortions should not be directly paid 
for with tax dollars.
  Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has saved 2 million lives by 
prohibiting tax dollars from funding abortions. It is time to make this 
lifesaving amendment permanent and governmentwide. If signed by our new 
President, this measure would do just that. Supporting comprehensive, 
life-affirming care is a better and more effective way to invest in 
women's health.
  I am thankful to all those who will come to Washington, D.C., this 
week to March for Life on behalf of the unborn. As a practicing 
Catholic and the father of three, I am proud to be the voice for the 
unborn here in Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7 and stand up for life.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. DelBene).
  Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, this weekend, millions of women marched 
across the country to send a clear signal to Congress and President 
Trump: Hear our voices and protect our rights.
  Yet here we are, just 2 days later, voting on the same extremist 
policies that House leaders have been pushing for years.

[[Page 1194]]

  Women will not be fooled. We know H.R. 7 is another direct attack on 
our health and our families. It creates sweeping new restrictions on 
abortion care for women who purchase coverage under the Affordable Care 
Act, with no meaningful exceptions to protect a woman's health.
  That means women like Stephanie, from my district, who faced 
heartbreaking complications during her wanted pregnancy, would be left 
without coverage for the doctor-recommended care she needed.
  We should not be injecting ideology into a woman's personal medical 
decisions. This bill is an insult to the millions of women who marched 
this weekend, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).
  Mr. PITTENGER. Madam Speaker, just a few weeks ago, my family was 
blessed with the arrival of a beautiful baby girl, our 10th grandchild. 
If you have ever held a newborn, so defenseless and completely 
dependent on you, you will understand why the idea that some people 
advocate for the murder of little babies is unconscionable.
  Since 1975, the Hyde amendment has saved an estimated 2 million 
innocent babies by prohibiting taxpayer dollars from being used for 
abortions. Unfortunately, ObamaCare ignores the Hyde amendment and uses 
your tax dollars as subsidies for insurance policies which offer 
abortion services.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the No 
Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure 
Act, which will make the Hyde amendment governmentwide policy and 
ensure future government programs don't support abortion with your tax 
dollars.
  God tells us that He knew us in our mother's womb. His gift of life 
is precious, unalienable, and must be protected.

                              {time}  1515

  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin), another one of our excellent new Members.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7.
  A few days ago, millions of Americans made history by marching for 
freedom and equality against an administration that keeps threatening 
to grab women by their privacy rights. H.R. 7 now tries to make it 
impossible for millions of women, like my constituents in Maryland, to 
have an abortion, even when their health is at stake and even to the 
point of manipulating the tax laws to force private insurers in the ACA 
not to offer complete coverage.
  Here in Washington, D.C., the only capital of a democracy on Earth 
where residents are denied voting representation in their national 
legislature, this extreme legislation constitutes a special assault on 
liberty. The hundreds of thousands of taxpaying citizens living in D.C. 
have decided, like the people of Maryland, to offer Medicaid funding 
for poor women to have complete coverage. This legislation strips this 
modicum of democracy away in the District of Columbia, combining a 
cavalier attack on democracy with a vicious attack on health care.
  If a foreign repressive power like Russia tried to deny women in our 
Capital City complete medical coverage, we would consider it an act of 
aggression against the United States. As a Representative from 
Maryland, the Free State, I reject this outrageous attempt to deprive 
women of their constitutionally protected choices, and as the next-door 
neighbor of the good people of Washington, D.C., I reject this brutal 
attack on democracy and health care.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a gentleman who has been a champion of 
life.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank my dear colleague and friend, Diane Black, 
for her leadership on this most essential issue.
  Madam Speaker, if you look behind us on this dais right here, it 
says, ``Peace, Liberty, Justice.'' We inscribe these words all around 
our Nation's Capitol and on our monuments, but in truth, we cannot find 
peace in a society that does not protect its most vulnerable members. 
We cannot find liberty when we are indifferent to one another, and we 
cannot claim justice when we throw away innocent life.
  Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting that the early feminist 
movement was pro-life. They saw abortion for what it is: the 
abandonment of women. Once an abortion occurs, as Maddie Brinckerhoff, 
an early feminist lecturer, once said:

       It is evidence by either a lack of education or resources, 
     she has been greatly wronged.

  At the very least, I think, Madam Speaker, we can stand with the vast 
majority of Americans and not use our taxpayer dollars to subsidize the 
abortion industry and the violence against women.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 11 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 30 seconds remaining.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, what this bill is about is taking women who 
can't afford to get an abortion and not allowing them to use taxpayer-
funded money to get it. The assumption on the other side is they won't 
have money, because people who are in dire straits won't have money to 
get it, and therefore they will have these 2 million children they are 
talking about.
  What we are talking about--let's make it clear--is they are talking 
about poor women who they think can't afford to get to a doctor or to 
an abortion provider and force them to have children that they can't 
have because of economics.
  So women, poor women, do not forgive them for they know what they do. 
They are trying to put you at their mercy and make you have children 
because you are poor. If they get their ultimate desire--and that is 
the repeal of Roe v. Wade--then poor women will not be able to get an 
abortion, but wealthy women will.
  Trump said, yes, if they outlaw abortion, go to another State. Easy 
to say when you are a billionaire, but not a thing to say to the middle 
class and poor women of this country whom they want to force, through 
their economic disparities, to bear children.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I know our time is short. I just want to 
say that this bill signifies our staunch support for life, and in spite 
of what has all been said, it just simply prevents taxpayer funds from 
being used to pay for abortions.
  For years our government has had a patchwork approach to this issue. 
However, this bill, H.R. 7, would create a clear and unified policy 
across all Federal agencies.
  Our Founding Fathers set forth in the Declaration of Independence 
``that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their 
Creator with certain unalienable Rights.'' One of those unalienable 
rights is life. Therefore, it follows that the right to life of each 
human being should be preserved and protected.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
has expired.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler), an activist on this issue.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, there is obviously a difference of opinion 
in this country on the morality of abortion. I am appalled by the moral 
arrogance of the Republicans who would use political power to impose 
their views on the millions of women who disagree with them and want to 
make their own decisions.
  Though the Supreme Court has determined that neither Congress nor a 
State may place an undue burden on a woman's right to terminate a 
pregnancy, the Hyde amendment makes

[[Page 1195]]

abortion access virtually impossible for low-income women.
  As unjust and despicable as the Hyde amendment is, this bill goes 
beyond it. For the first time, Republicans are attempting to restrict 
the right of women to use their own money to pay for abortions by 
denying normal tax deductions for medical expenses if those medical 
expenses include an abortion, by denying normal tax credits for health 
insurance if that insurance covers abortion, and by denying use of tax-
free money from an FSA or an HSA for an abortion.
  The intent of this bill is obvious: to end insurance coverage for all 
abortions, thereby making it nearly impossible for women to exercise 
their constitutional rights.
  Republicans should pay heed to the millions of women who marched to 
protect their rights this weekend and are watching how we vote today.
  Madam Speaker, there is obviously a difference of opinion in this 
country on the morality of abortion. I am appalled at the moral 
arrogance of the Republicans who would use political power to impose 
their views on the millions of women who disagree with them and want to 
make their own decisions.
  If Saturday's protests are any indication, the women of America and 
the world are watching us. They are not going to stand silently by 
while Republicans in Congress and the White House take away their 
rights, their health care, their families, and their livelihoods. They 
sent this message loud and clear, but it seems my Republican colleagues 
have not heard it. Yesterday morning, President Trump signed an 
executive order reinstating the Global Gag Rule, which will deny 
thousands of women around the world access to reproductive health care, 
which will lead to a dramatic decline in maternal and infant health 
around the world.
  Today, Republicans are bringing up a bill that will deny women the 
right to access comprehensive reproductive health care, a right 
protected by the Constitution.
  The right of a woman to decide whether to become pregnant, to decide 
to continue her pregnancy, or to make the 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 for other medical procedures should be 
considered an ``undue burden.'' For decades, Congress has imposed the 
Hyde Amendment on every appropriations bill. This language 
disproportionately impacts poor women and women of color, effectively 
denying them their constitutional right to access abortion. Yet today, 
Republicans want to make that language permanent.
  As unjust and despicable as the Hyde Amendment is, this bill goes 
beyond it. For the first time, Republicans are restricting the right of 
women to use their own money to pay for abortions. This bill will deny 
normal tax deductions for medical expenses if those expenses include 
abortion, normal tax credits for health insurance if that insurance 
includes abortion, and denying the ability to use tax-free money from 
an FSA or HSA for an abortion.
  The bill does include an exception in cases of rape, incest, or the 
life of the mother. You may ask, how the IRS will know a woman's reason 
for getting an abortion. Well, under this bill, women will have to 
prove they are a victim of rape or incest or will have to provide 
detailed medical records to determine just how at risk their life was. 
Women will not only have to suffer the trauma of a sexual assault or 
the loss of a pregnancy because of life-threatening complications, they 
will now also have to face an IRS inquisition to get their own money 
back. So much for Republicans' pledge to get ``big government'' out of 
people's lives.
  The intent of this bill is obvious: to end insurance coverage for all 
abortions thereby making it nearly impossible for women to exercise 
their constitutional rights. Republicans are clearly out of step with 
the millions of women who marched to protect their rights this weekend. 
Those women, and the millions more who stand with them, are watching 
and ready to fight back. I am proud to vote against this bill and to 
join their fight.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, these are the faces of innocent and 
wonderful women like Dakota and Chenoa, who indicate that, if they did 
not have Planned Parenthood, they would not be able to be where they 
are today, or Chenoa, who indicated, without Planned Parenthood and the 
Affordable Care Act, they wouldn't have access to health care.
  That is what H.R. 7 intends to do, to deny these young, beautiful 
women an opportunity. But more importantly, my colleagues on the other 
side want to suggest they only--they only--have religion and faith. But 
as a mother, let me say that every child I have loved and every woman 
who has had a decision to make I have loved and respected for her 
choice of a faith, her God, and her doctor.
  Rather than having this war on women by Republicans, we need to be 
dealing with the voting rights law. Rather than prohibiting individuals 
from receiving a refundable tax credit on cost-sharing reductions for 
purchasing a qualified health plan that encourages coverage for 
abortions or denying the District of Columbia their rights, we should 
be standing for rights. This is a constitutional right. It is also a 
choice by a woman of her God, her doctor, and her family.
  Vote against H.R. 7. It is violence against women. It is not helping 
women or the unborn child.
  Madam Speaker, I rise again in strong opposition to H.R. 7, the so-
called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.''
  I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women 
at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of 
privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the 
American people.
  A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating 
the Rights of Women Act of 2017.''
  Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across 
the aisle should be working with Democrats to build upon the ``Middle-
Class Economics'' championed by the Obama Administration that have 
succeeded in ending the economic meltdown it inherited in 2009 and 
revived the economy to the point where today we have the highest rate 
of growth and lowest rate of unemployment since the boom years of the 
Clinton Administration.
  We could and should instead be voting to raise the minimum wage to 
$15.00 per hour so that people who work hard and play by the rules do 
not have to 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

[[Page 1196]]

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 11th hour but have 
never received a hearing or a mark-up.
  These new provisions would (1) ban abortion coverage in multi-state 
health plans available under the ACA; and (2) mandate that health plans 
mislead consumers about abortion coverage by requiring all plans in the 
health-insurance exchanges that include abortion coverage to display 
that fact prominently in all advertising, marketing materials, or 
information from the insurer but interestingly, does not require the 
same disclosure from plans that do not cover abortion.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 would also force health plans to mislead 
consumers about the law's treatment of abortion.
  As a concession to anti-choice lawmakers, the ACA requires insurance 
plans participating in the new health system to segregate monies used 
for abortion services from all other funds.
  In order to aid in identifying these funds and simplify the process 
of segregating general premium dollars from those used to cover 
abortion services, the ACA requires that health plans estimate the cost 
of abortion coverage at no less than $1 per enrollee per month.
  H.R. 7 would require plans covering abortion to misrepresent this 
practice as an ``abortion surcharge,'' which is to be disclosed and 
identified as a portion of the consumer's premium.
  By describing abortion coverage in this way, H.R. 7 makes it look as 
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 bill.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Speaker, I stand with women and men 
across our country in opposition to H.R. 7, the latest effort from 
Republican leaders to take the opportunity for women to make choices 
about their own healthcare decisions.
  This weekend, my colleagues and I marched arm in arm with our 
constituents in women's marches across the country. I heard these 
Americans, and if you were listening, you would have heard them say, 
``my body, my choice''; ``her body, her choice.'' This bill ignores the 
voices of women and male feminists in the United States.
  Particularly disturbing, H.R. 7 prevents small businesses that use 
ACA tax credits from using them to pay for comprehensive health 
coverage for their employees that includes abortion services. Passage 
of this bill means the government, whom my colleagues claim is too big, 
will dramatically expand its role in a woman's healthcare decision.
  As we have seen time and time again, restrictions like these 
disproportionately affect low-income women, younger women, and women of 
color. All women deserve the ability to make their own healthcare 
decisions without government interference. It is her body. It is her 
choice.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize the intrusive, unfair, and unequal 
consequences of H.R. 7.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Barragan), another one of our new, wonderful Members.
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Madam Speaker, women's reproductive rights are under 
attack. We have heard today H.R. 7 disproportionately affects women of 
color and low-income women, like my family.
  Growing up in Carson, California, my two older sisters got pregnant 
as teenagers--one at 15 and one at 16--so I know from my own family 
experience and personal experience the importance of being able to make 
your own choices for your own body and your own beliefs. As a teenager 
without

[[Page 1197]]

health insurance, I, like many women in my community, relied on 
services like Planned Parenthood to access contraception, which I would 
not have been able to afford otherwise.
  Despite what the other side claims, taxpayer dollars do not fund 
abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to preserve the life of a 
mother. Like millions of other women, I am grateful for these services 
and the opportunity to make decisions that are right for me. I oppose 
the attack on women's reproductive rights.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. Madam Speaker, on Saturday, I proudly stood shoulder to 
shoulder with thousands of strong women and their allies in south 
Florida. It was one of hundreds of demonstrations across the country 
and the globe, millions of people in the streets sending a loud message 
that rang out all across the world.
  But the GOP majority has chosen to ignore the calls for women to be 
able to control their own bodies and their own health care. This bill 
says to American women: your bodies, Washington's rules.
  The majority uses talking points about getting Washington out of 
health care when they are fighting to kick 32 million people off their 
insurance, but when it comes to women's bodies, House Republicans are 
happy to step between a woman and her doctor.
  As a man, I have never had to drive across State lines to find a 
doctor. I have never had my doctor silenced about a medical procedure. 
As a man, I have never had to endure an invasive and unnecessary 
procedure to satisfy someone else's twisted political desires. These 
experiences are all too common for women in America today.
  While I and my male colleagues in Congress get to have an open and 
honest relationship with our doctors, this bill will deepen the ugly 
fight against women's control of their own bodies. Reproductive rights 
are women's rights and must be respected. Show that respect by voting 
``no'' on H.R. 7.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the fad, 
apparently, this week, is the idea of alternative facts. In other 
words, if politicians don't like the facts that they have been given or 
the reality of the situation, then what we should do is we should just 
come up with new facts; and apparently, the facts in this bill are 
that, apparently, the other side is worried about taxpayer funding for 
abortions.
  As we have said repeatedly, we don't like this on this side of the 
aisle, but right now, because of the annual Hyde amendment, there is no 
taxpayer funding for abortion. We aim to change that because it is 
probably the most regressive legislation that we have for women's 
health.

                              {time}  1530

  It says that rich women can get the full range of healthcare services 
they need, including abortion; but poor women, the women least equipped 
to be able to raise unwanted children, and certainly not with help from 
this Congress, are the ones who cannot get those services that they 
needed.
  So I just want to say one more time because I keep hearing the 
alternative facts over and over, there are right now no taxpayer 
funding for abortions, something that we need to fix. But this bill 
takes us the opposite direction. What this bill does is it codifies the 
Hyde amendment in statute once and for all, and that would bar low-
income women from receiving these much-needed services. It codifies the 
D.C. abortion ban, which would rob the D.C. City Council of giving the 
healthcare services D.C. women need, even with D.C. tax revenues. It 
codifies the Helms amendment, which is the same thing as the Hyde 
amendment for international programs. And perhaps the biggest ban here 
is it restricts people's ability to buy insurance policies on the 
healthcare exchanges with their own money that will cover abortion.
  I heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle over and 
over again that there are a thousand policies. The lady from South 
Dakota said that government dollars were supporting abortive 
procedures. That is just simply not the case. There is no Federal money 
in the exchanges paying for abortive procedures.
  What this bill does is it greatly expands restrictions on women's 
ability with their own money to buy insurance policies with legal 
healthcare coverage that they feel that they need. And it says that if 
you get a subsidy, then you can't get a policy with your own money. 
That is a vast expansion, and it is well beyond the pale.
  It is also, by the way, beyond what the American public says. Because 
the American public, by 86 percent, says that if you are poor, then 
politicians should not put their personal views on you and you should 
be able to get the healthcare coverage that you need. We saw this with 
the millions of American women and men in Washington and around the 
country who marched this last weekend. But we see it in the polling. 
People say, if you are poor, you should be able to get the healthcare 
coverage you need, not what some politician in Washington tells you.
  I have an idea. Every year, around the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and 
the time that the protestors come to Washington, I don't think that we 
should debate this futile exercise year after year. I think we should 
come together across the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to figure 
out how we can prevent unwanted pregnancies.
  I am getting ready to introduce a bill. I would urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, including the Republican side, to cosponsor 
this bill. This bill will expand contraception and family planning 
services and long-range contraception for all American women so that we 
can prevent unwanted pregnancies.
  In Colorado, we have a program that is called LARC. And what it is is 
a program where the State helps teen and young women get long-acting 
contraception so they can prevent unwanted pregnancies. And here is 
what happened in Colorado when we enacted this very robust and helpful 
program. According to the data from the Colorado Department of Public 
Health and Environment, both the birth rate and abortion rate for women 
ages 15 to 19 fell 48 percent from 2009 to 2014 because of long-acting 
contraception, and the same was true for women of the next age group 
up.
  We can do this. We can do this together. Let's start talking about a 
way to improve women's health instead of to restrict their choices. 
Vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Madam Speaker, I will vote No on Roll 
Call No. 65, on H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and 
Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017.
  Today, just two days after the 44th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade 
Supreme Court ruling that protects the rights of women to control their 
own bodies, House Republicans have once again taken up a vote attacking 
the constitutionally-protected reproductive rights of women all across 
the nation.
  As if this past weekend's Women's March on Washington (which was far 
more attended than President Trump's own inauguration) didn't signal 
anything to our elected leaders, President Trump took the GOP's war on 
women's rights and health a step further by signing an executive order 
reinstating the `global gag rule' and blocking foreign aid for 
international non-governmental organizations that provide basic 
reproductive health services globally. This decision not only increases 
abortion rates, it will cause more maternal complications, injuries, 
and unintended pregnancies and provide less information on HIV/AIDS 
prevention and treatment programs worldwide.
  Republicans continue their shameful, radical assault on women's 
reproductive health with today's vote on H.R. 7, a discriminatory bill 
that among other things would prohibit the use of federal funds to pay 
for any abortion services. Despite the fact that current law already 
requires that federal funds not be spent on abortions, this bill would 
prohibit individuals and small businesses from claiming tax credits for 
any private insurance plans obtained through the ACA Marketplace that 
include abortion coverage. Families buying their insurance in the 
Marketplace would also be ineligible to receive a premium tax credits 
if they

[[Page 1198]]

enrolled in a health plan that covers abortion, likely resulting in no 
abortion coverage policies being offered in the Marketplaces. 
Furthermore, it undermines the District of Columbia's home rule, which 
allows D.C. to use its own Medicaid funds to offer abortion services. 
This is despite the fact that 17 states, including California, are 
currently allowed to do so.
  Women should be able to make their own decisions about reproductive 
health care with dignity and respect, without the interference of 
politicians or their employers. We should not be in the business of 
telling women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. 
Today's vote is just another step forward in the Republican party's 
plan to Make America Sick Again and take away the comprehensive care 
women deserve.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
rule. This is about a woman's fundamental right to make her own family 
planning decisions. The courts have spoken: Roe v. Wade is settled law, 
and a majority of Americans support it. But the Majority would rather 
roll back the clock by decades, forcing women back into a reality when 
women could not make their own health care decisions, by restricting 
insurance coverage. Enough is enough.
  We must promote and protect the rights of every woman, every family, 
every American to make their own family planning decisions, and to have 
access to a full range of healthcare services.
  What we are facing now is not just an attack on the right to 
abortion. It is not just an attack on women's health. It is an assault 
on the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans. On Saturday, 
millions of people across the country marched in support of an agenda 
that puts women's health decisions in the hands of women and their 
families--and that ensures safe and affordable access to women's 
healthcare. This bill flies in the face of the mandate demonstrated 
this weekend, and I oppose it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7, 
the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act and Abortion 
Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017.''
  The Majority marks the 44th anniversary of Roe v. Wade this week with 
its latest attempt to undo that decision's unequivocal recognition of a 
woman's constitutionally protected right to choose to terminate a 
pregnancy.
  We must recognize this bill for what it really is. H.R. 7 is yet 
another attack by the Majority on women's health, a goal it 
accomplishes in several respects.
  To begin with, H.R. 7 would make it virtually impossible for a woman 
to obtain abortion services even when paid for with purely private, 
non-Federal funds.
  It achieves this end by denying Affordable Care Act tax credits to 
income-eligible women and small business employers who choose insurance 
coverage that includes abortion.
  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.
  Despite the claims of its sponsors, H.R. 7 does not merely codify 
current law, but, rather, goes well beyond it to deny women basic 
health care services.
  Moreover, to the extent it bans federal funding of abortion services, 
H.R. 7 is unnecessary, because such funding is already banned by the 
Hyde Amendment, and the Affordable Care Act maintains that ban.
  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 the Hyde Amendment and similar measures in annual 
appropriations bills.
  Nothing in the Affordable Care Act changes this. That Act does not 
permit federal funding of abortion, and ensures that only private funds 
can be used to purchase abortion insurance coverage.
  There is absolutely no risk that public money will be used to pay for 
abortion services.
  So what is H.R. 7 really about? Plain and simple, it is part of the 
Majority's relentless war against women's health and constitutional 
freedoms.
  Members should understand that a vote for H.R. 7 is not a vote to 
codify existing law. It is, instead, a vote to attack women's health 
and equality.
  Finally, we should reject H.R. 7's permanent restriction on the 
District of Columbia's use of local funds that Congress has approved.
  H.R. 7 not only infringes women's constitutional rights, but also 
intrudes deeply into local government decision-making by the District.
  Women and families who live in the District should not be singled out 
for additional harm simply because of where they live.
  Last Congress, the Obama Administration ``strongly oppose[d]'' a 
substantially similar bill, saying the legislation ``would intrude on 
women's reproductive freedom and access to health care; increase the 
financial burden on many Americans; [and] unnecessarily restrict the 
private insurance choices that consumers have today.''
  I agree wholeheartedly with that analysis and, accordingly, I 
strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
7--another radical attempt by House Republicans to attack women's 
health and limit women's access to comprehensive care.
  The real purpose of this bill is to effectively eliminate insurance 
coverage for abortion services, not only for federally funded coverage, 
but also for private health insurance by raising taxes on women, their 
families, and small businesses.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this bill 
just codifies the Hyde Amendment, which already prohibits federal 
funding for abortion except in limited cases of rape, incest, or to 
save the life of the mother, and it is already enacted each year in 
appropriations.
  But in reality, this bill goes much further than that. Instead of 
just limiting the Hyde Amendment's reach to federal funds, this bill 
would place sweeping restrictions on how women with private insurance 
can spend their own private dollars when obtaining insurance coverage.
  Women and their families who have insurance through the health 
insurance marketplaces would no longer be entitled to premium tax 
credits if the plan in which they are enrolled includes abortion 
coverage. Small business employers would be prohibited from receiving 
small business tax credits if the insurance provided to employees 
includes abortion services.
  This would mean that women would likely forgo comprehensive coverage 
in order to retain the premium tax credits they need, and small 
businesses may limit coverage to ensure they receive small business tax 
credits. But this is the true goal for proponents of this bill: to 
effectively eliminate insurance coverage for abortion.
  As we speak, Republicans are actively working to dismantle the 
Affordable Care Act, to restrict access to contraception, and to defund 
the life-saving health care services provided by Planned Parenthood. It 
seems that this bill is another page in their playbook to attack 
women's health. Let me be clear: this bill isn't about ensuring federal 
funds are not used for abortion--this bill is about denying women 
access to coverage Republicans disagree with.
  Bringing this bill to the floor only days after millions of women 
throughout the country marched on behalf of issues like reproductive 
rights just shows how tone-deaf House Republicans continue to be.
  We should be working to protect and expand women's access to 
comprehensive health care, not considering ways to deny it.
  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.
  I urge my colleagues to stop the relentless attacks on women's health 
and vote against this damaging, unnecessary legislation.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I was proud to join thousands of women 
in the Women's March, both here in DC and in my home state of Rhode 
Island.
  We marched to demand that women's rights be respected and that women 
should be trusted to make their own decisions.
  However, a mere three days later, the GOP seeks to trample on women's 
rights by considering H.R. 7, a bill that will deny access to basic 
healthcare to millions of women.

[[Page 1199]]

  This bill is also just another pathetic attempt by some politicians 
in this town to get between a woman and her doctor.
  Under current law, no federal money can be used to fund abortion. And 
it's been that way since 1976.
  This bill is a Trojan horse that effectively bans abortion coverage 
even for women who use their own money to pay for health insurance.
  It penalizes small business owners who offer their employees health 
care coverage for abortion.
  And it tells doctors who are employed by the federal government that 
they can't provide the care that is in the best interests of their 
patients.
  Madam Speaker, the women of this country do not need Congress telling 
them how to make their health care decisions.
  Having an abortion is a decision that should be left between a woman 
and her doctor.
  None of us has a license to legislate our own personal morality in 
this chamber.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 7.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full 
Disclosure Act.
  This bill is an unprecedented attack on a woman's right to make her 
own healthcare decisions and another attempt by Republicans to 
undermine the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
  This legislation goes far beyond the long-standing Hyde Amendment 
which Congress passes every year during the Appropriations process 
preventing taxpayer dollars from being used for abortions. The Hyde 
Amendment is included in each Appropriations bill every year. This bill 
stretches increase taxes on millions of individuals and small 
businesses that purchase private healthcare plans that include abortion 
coverage. It takes away protections for rape survivors and pregnant 
women whose lives are in danger, and bans women in the military from 
abortion care in a military hospital overseas, even if they use their 
own money to pay for that care. This will deny millions of American 
women access to truly comprehensive health care.
  A woman's right to choose whether to end a pregnancy is protected 
constitutionally. The decision is private. It is a matter of faith and 
it is a matter of conscience. I believe women already have the right to 
make decisions about reproductive health care, that it is protected 
constitutionally. This legislation should be rejected for its overly 
broad reach, its false advertising and its attack on the 
constitutionally protected right to privacy.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7, a 
bill that makes it harder for women to access comprehensive 
reproductive health care, including safe and legal abortion. It is 
outrageous that, in 2017, women still have to fight for our right to 
make basic health care decisions.
  Under the Hyde and Helms Amendments, no federal dollars fund 
abortion. H.R. 7 would codify these unjust limitations and in fact goes 
much further by restricting women's access to comprehensive health care 
even when no federal funding is involved.
  Most egregiously, H.R. 7 provides no exception for abortion in cases 
where a woman's health is at risk. By providing no ``health of the 
mother'' exception, this legislation callously disregards the well-
being of American women.
  H.R. 7 makes it impossible for women, especially low and moderate-
income women, to access comprehensive health care on Healthcare.gov or 
state insurance exchanges. This would deny access to safe and legal 
abortion to American women.
  This legislation prevents women serving our country in the military 
from receiving comprehensive health care through their military or 
veterans' health care.
  H.R. 7 punishes small business owners who offer comprehensive health 
care to their female employees, even when it comes entirely from 
private funds.
  Finally, this legislation directly attacks the rights of women in the 
District of Columbia by making it harder for them to access safe and 
legal abortion.
  Every woman should be able to make her own decision about her health 
care without interference from either the government or her employer. 
Regardless of her income or her insurance policy, each woman should be 
able to access quality health care services that are right for her and 
her family.
  Instead of restricting access to critical health services and 
threatening the health and economic security of women and families, 
President Trump and Congressional Republicans should be supporting 
affordable, quality health care as a basic right for all Americans.
  This past weekend, I stood with millions of women across the United 
States, including 100,000 in Minnesota, marching to demand our voices 
be heard and our health care be protected. My constituents can count on 
me to keep standing up and speaking out against President Trump and 
Republicans' attacks on women's rights and women's health.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 55, 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. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes, I am opposed to the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Schakowsky moves to recommit the bill H.R. 7 to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Add at the end of title I the following new section (and 
     amend the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 103. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act may be construed to permit any health 
     plan to charge women higher premiums than men for coverage 
     under such health plan.

  Mrs. BLACK (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise to offer the motion to recommit 
on H.R. 7, the so-called No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion 
Insurance Full Disclosure Act.
  The motion to recommit is very simple. It would amend H.R. 7 to say 
that nothing in this legislation would allow an insurance company to 
charge women higher premiums than men just because they are women.
  In the first few days of the Trump Presidency, we have seen one 
action after another to discriminate against women, restrict access to 
health services, and make their care more expensive. We also know that 
Republicans are determined to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which 
would, once again, allow insurance companies to discriminate against 
women.
  Repealing the ACA would be a triple whammy for women. Not only would 
they have to pay more for their insurance, but their insurance would be 
less likely to cover the services they need. And these higher costs 
will take a bigger chunk out of their budget.
  Before the ACA, insurers were able to exclude services critical to 
women's health. And we are not just talking about preexisting 
conditions, which, by the way, often included having a baby or being 
the victim of domestic violence.
  The benefit package itself left out medical care critical to women. 
Only 12 percent of plans in the individual market offered maternity 
coverage. And some insurance plans that offered that coverage imposed 
waiting periods of a year or charges of up to $10,000 just for 
maternity care. And even when maternity care was excluded from any 
insurance plan, insurers still used gender rating to discriminate 
against women, charging women more just because they were women, 
regardless of their benefits. Being a woman was a preexisting 
condition.
  Thankfully, the ACA prohibits gender rating. Before the ACA, women 
were forced to pay between 10 to 57 percent more than men for 
essentially the same insurance. In my home State of Illinois, women 
were charged 55 percent more than men for the same coverage. In fact, a 
2012 National Women's Law Center study found that 92 percent of best-
selling insurance plans were gender rated.
  A 25-year-old woman in Arkansas was charged 81 percent more than a 
man for similar coverage. A 40-year-old woman

[[Page 1200]]

in South Dakota was charged over $1,200 more a year than a 40-year-old 
man for the same coverage. In Kentucky, women were charged 57 percent 
more than men for the same coverage. In Texas, they were charged 56 
percent more. In Indiana, they were charged 54 percent more. And the 
list goes on.
  This study even found that over half of all insurance plans charged 
women who didn't smoke significantly higher premiums than men of the 
same age who did smoke. Overall, gender rating cost American women 
about $1 billion a year. It also harmed businesses with predominantly 
female employees who were routinely charged more for their insurance 
coverage.
  Finally, charging women more for health care is even more devastating 
when you take into account that women still make only 77 cents to the 
dollar compared to men. We cannot go back to the days when insurance 
companies were free to discriminate against women. But that is exactly 
what Republicans want to do. They want women to pay more for insurance 
coverage that doesn't include the services they need.
  So I am asking my colleagues to support the motion to recommit and 
protect women from discrimination by insurance companies.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, today I am simply asking my colleagues 
across the aisle not to flip-flop on this issue. This legislation isn't 
just the right thing to do; it also has broad support.
  Polling shows that 6 in 10 Americans agree that taxpayer dollars 
should not fund abortions. Despite this fact, a nonpartisan government 
study found that abortions could be funded with taxpayer dollars 
through ObamaCare, and this demands a response.
  Today we have an opportunity to invest in women's health over 
abortion by passing H.R. 7 and making the Hyde amendment permanent and 
governmentwide.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit and to vote 
``yes'' on H.R. 7.
  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. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________