treat last week as well. so this has been mounting, a significant number of women in the gop party have expressed concern over this. and they didn't have enough votes to pass it without them. >> we heard from chris smith on the floor. and you tweeted some of his comments saying that he said the 20 week abortion ban bill just delayed will eventually be considered, just working through some bits. so in the details of that what are those bits they have to work through? >> well, it is my understanding that what is really at issue is that provision for the rape and incest reporting requirements. there is also a requirement that the exception for incest in that ban would have to only be committed by a minor and something that also is at issue as well. >> what about other conservatives in the house. what has been their reaction to the pulling of that original bill at least temporarily? >> well, there is some disappointment that this was not going to be considered today after anti-abortion groups have

touted it in the weeks leading up to this march. conservatives are still happy that at least this bill, which was considered last year is now being considered on the floor. it is an issue that also came up last september in the gao report that said some of the federal subsidies under the health law were being used to cover some abortion services. >> is this the kind of measure that we -- we mentioned at the top that the march for life happening in washington this week, is this the sort of measure that these abortion bills that really have to be passed by the house? >> yeah. they're pretty much messaging bills at this point. in the senate it will be difficult for them to pass and obama issued a veto threat last year on this federal funding for abortion bill. >> melanie covering it all covering health policy and the abortion bill debate in the house. you can follow her reporting on twitter at mzanona. thank you for joining us. >> thanks.

and legislation is being voted on the house floor right now. we will have results for you when the vote is complete. as we look live at the annual march for life and rally taking place here in washington, d.c. members hearing from religious and government officials and later they'll attendees will march to the u.s. supreme court. >> -- can service and truth with love. we gather today with biblical conviction and courage to speak to the spiritual forces that exacerbate the death of innocence in the womb. we gather today to speak to the spirit of pharaoh and the spirit of harrod and to declare the following, we declare the following, for every pharaoh there will be a moses. for every goliath there will be a david.

for every nebuchadnezzar there will be a daniel. for every jezebel there will be an elijah. for every harrod there will be a jesus. and for every devil that rises up against us, there is a mightier god that rises up for us. for we understand that the right to life stems not from the executive branch judicial or the legislative branch, the right to life does not stand from a political party or apparatus. it does not come from the donkey or the elephant. the right to life comes from the land that is on the throne, his name is jesus. therefore, on the anniversary of roe v. wade, let us remind our

nation and our fellow citizens that uncle sam may be our uncle but he will never be our heavenly father. with that let me invite you to pray. let us pray. heavenly father, we pray that this generation will recognize the image of god in every human being in and out of the womb without exception. we pray that the followers of christ will no longer hide at the bottom of the thrushing floor, but rather emerge as mighty heroes of righteousness and justice. we pray that the children of the cross realize that today's complacency is tomorrow's captivity. that moral stagnation leads to spiritual atrophy and that

there is no such thing as comfortable christianity. we pray that children will not be aborted that marriages will thrive, and religious liberty will prevail for generations to come. we pray that truth will never be sacrificed on the altar of expediency, that love will overcome hate and that the prophetic will silence the pathetic. and we pray for the strength of the father the grace of the son, and the anointing of god's spirit to equip us in order to advance your agenda, an agenda that protects the innocent and the unborn all while we do justice, love mercy and walk humbly before god. and we pray all of this in the holy righteous triumphant victorious name of jesus christ,

our lord and savior, amen and amen. >> thank you reverend rodriguez. okay, everyone. we're about ready to start marching here. but just a couple of favors. first, if you have any trash, there is a dumpster and trash area on the way to where you're going to start marching, so please dump it in there. if you see any on the ground, please pick it up. also, our knights of columbus from virginia will be collecting donations along constitution avenue. please be generous. however, before we begin our march, i would ask everyone to welcome back marie miller back to the stage to close the rally by singing god bless america.

at conclusion of the song jeannie will invite everyone to join her to begin the 42nd march for life. marie miller. ♪ god bless america land that i love ♪ ♪ stand beside her and guide her ♪ ♪ through the night with the light from above ♪ ♪ from the mountains to the prairies to the oceans white with foam ♪ ♪ god bless america my home sweet home ♪

♪ god bless america my home sweet home ♪ >> thank you, god bless you all. thank you. >> ladies and gentlemen, there is a -- one more lost child. i'm sorry, there is a 9-year-old, she's over here to my right, your left. she's 9-year-olds old from north dakota. she's looking for her parents. okay, so if you -- you see anyone, they're right over here by the gate.

>> live coverage of the annual march for life and rally. this is taking place on the 42nd anniversary of the supreme court's decision in roe v. wade that legalized abortion in the u.s. and attendees are now heading to the supreme court, which is a part of the annual tradition. they head to the supreme court and gather there. while this is taking place we will go back to earlier today where the members of the house took up the debate on the house abortion bill. we'll show you that floor debate right now. >> house resolution 42 provides for closed rule allowing consideration of hr-7 the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. since 1973 at least 52 million children's lives have been tragically taken by abortion in the united states. it is unconscionable that in america where we fight for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness we tolerate the

systematic extermination of an entire generation of the most vulnerable among us. in the midst of that darkness there has been one area of consensus, mr. speaker. protecting taxpayers from paying for a practice they may sincerely oppose. since 1976, the hyde amendment, which prohibits the federal funding of abortions, has been included in relevant appropriations bills. each year it has been consistently renewed and supported by congressional majorities and presidents of both parties. naral, an abortion advocacy group, has suggested that prohibiting public funds for abortion reduces abortion rates by roughly 50%. that means that half of the women who would have otherwise had a publicly funded abortion end up carrying their babies to term. in 1993, the congressional budget office estimated that the hyde amendment prevented as many

as 675 abortions every single year. that means that millions of americans are alive today because of the hyde amendment. after 38 years, it is time for this life saving amendment to become permanent law. when barack obama was elected in 2008, a myriad of long established laws including the hyde amendment created a mostly uniform policy that federal programs did not pay for abortion or subsidize health plans that included coverage of abortion with only narrow exceptions. unfortunately obama care destroyed that long-standing policy bypassing the hyde amendment restriction and paving the way for publicly funded abortions. the president's health care law authorized massive federal subsidies to assist millions of americans to purchase private health plans that will cover

abortions on demand. in other words mr. speaker hard earned taxpayer dollars are now being used to pay for elective abortions. this is simply unacceptable. hr-7 will codify the principles of the hyde amendment on the permanent government live basis, which means that it will apply to long-standing federal health programs such as medicaid, s-chip and federal employees health benefits as well as to new programs

bipartisan agreement protects the unborn and prevents tax payers from being forced to fund thousands of abortions. for these reasons, i urge my colleagues to respect our nation's consensus on abortion funding and affirm life by voting in favor of this rule and hr-7 and i reserve the balance of my time. >> good morning mr. speaker. thank you. i thank the gentle woman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, down the hall in the old house chamber78/ cleo, the muse of history. perched atop the room she's riding the chariot of time.

she's watched silently over the proceedings of this house since 1807. and in the folio that rests in the crook of her arm shea every move, large and small for the benefit of all generations, past, present and future. and what she's recording today i am certain is a disappointment. the proceedings playing out before us today show a blatant overt disrespect for the time honored rules of the house first written by thomas jefferson in 1801. the bill was supposed to come to the floor today a bill that would have stripped women of their right to constitutionally protected medical care, was so odious and destructive that some of the women of the republican conference rebelled against it. it was based on unsound and fictitious science and caused such a meltdown in the republican conference that the house majority pulled it from the floor for fear that it

wouldn't pass. but something had to be done because visitors were coming to town for the 42nd anniversary of the landmark supreme court decision roe v. wade. on this day mr. there are floods of visitors in the nation's capital to fight against that ruling. to protest that decision and raise their clarion call against the woman's right to choose. in this current congress, the bill is not brought to us under regular order as not many are. it had no committee action, it had no hearings, no markups, no witnesses testified in favor or against it and it came out of the rules committee and to the floor today under a closed rule. one of their ever ready alternatives came to us late last night which is even worse than the one it replaced. it seems that the majority has an endless supply of bills attacking women's health.

can't pass this one? grab another. can't pass that one? just take the next one. their insistence on attacking women's health seemingly knows no bounds. because this bill has not seen any committee action in the current congress no one has been able to read it or to weigh he in on it, to amend it and some of us would like a clarification on the sordid history of this bill. the earliest version of this bill was in the 112th congress. and in it was a phrase that lit a firestorm across the nation. it was, quote forcible rape, end quote. the bill was indeed the one that would have required women to prove their rape was, quote forcible end quote, so it could be categoryied as, quote, legitimate, end quote has nothing been learned here? the next generation of the bill in the 113th congress included a

provision, now listen to this america, that would have required the irs to audit women who had abortions to ensure that the pregnancy they terminated had been the result of rape or incest. this extreme legislation was written by -- sponsored by a man, a rich native from the subcommittee composed of 13 men, and passed out of the judiciary committee with the ame votes of 21 republican men.ding remember those pictures, w america? all of us women sitting there n men sitting there decidingjsx what r a women's health would be about? it is a perfect illustration of the problem we had for a long should time. that men in blue suits and red ties determine what women can and should do when it comes to arch their own health or bodies. ms. f this bill is absolutely a ll is solution in search of a problem as ms. fox pointed out.ill in

all of this is taken care of. there is no tax money for abortions. the bill in its current form would permanently, permanently ict of prohibit low income women, civil servants, district of columbia residents and military women from excessing a full range of unfortun reproductive services by taxp codifying the hyde amendment which unfortunately already requires in taxpayer funds be it's b spent onee abortions except in very limited services. it has been this way for decades. congress should be repealing the these seunfair discriminatory bands, not doubling down on them. are these provisions still in the current bill before us? we had no chance to check. and it has been a while since we have seen this bill. this display is a messaging opportunity and another attempt to dismantle the affordable careublic ex act. the bill not only threatens s, b women who buy their insurance onheir public exchanges, with federal ay

for tax t credits, but threatens women who use their own private money at thi to pay for their health jeopa insurance on the exchanges.e for experts tell us that this would e they jeopardize the availability of abortion coverage for all women,consid no matter where they buy their insurance. now, when thebe house considered this bill in the previous congress, it was attempt number 49. and today it is attempt number 55. that's right ladies and gentlemen, 55 votes majority aw held in this chamber last session and now this, to take health care away from their own constituents. and the house majority wasted ordabl nearly $80 million taxpayers e? money, to destroy the affordable care act.eir ba infrastructure ckmoney, anyone? time and again we see the house majority turn their backs on the people they represent and force the extreme agenda one filled with poison pills that would

take a country backward backward to a time when women died from back alley abortions. back to a time of women in desperate circumstances seeking illegal procedures performed by strangers with dirty hands and unspeakable conditions. backward to a time when medical choices were not the choice of the woman but of the public. backward to a time when women who, quote got themselves into trouble, end quote, by getting pregnant could not work, and could not go to school. these choices are personal. they're not public. a woman's actions regarding her own reproductive health should include anyone she deems appropriate, not the politicians in washington, or state capitals scoring political points off her health care, and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. >> gentle lady reserves. the gentle woman from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you madam speaker. madam speaker, as my colleague

knows, this legislation is identical to hr-7 which passed the house last congress after moving through regular order and including a full committee markup. with that, madam speaker i would like to yield five minutes to our distinguished colleague from new jersey, mr. smith, one of the strongest champions of life in this house. >> i want to thank -- >> the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five friends. >> for yielding and her leadership and reminding us this bill passed the house last year, identical form. only thing changed are the dates because they had to be updated. it is a 12-page bill which can be quickly read by any member and the only reason we have to be here is that the senate wouldn't even get -- or provide a vote on it. so the senate just shelved it we're now bringing it back up on the floor. madam speaker, because abortion dismembers decapitates or chemically poisons unborn children to death, the part of

abortion that my friends on the other side of this issue have a keen reluctance to not look at and to avoid abortion meth odds, we know we'll soon have the legislation on the floor, it will come to the floor, we know that children suffer excruciating pain from dismemberment, piece by piece, a child literally pulled apart, arms, legs, torso, decapitation. that's the reality of abortion madam speaker. because of all of this, americans have consistently demanded and now an ever growing numbers that public funds not pay for abortion. i would point out to my colleagues that yesterday the maris poll found that 68% of americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortion. that includes 69% of women.

71% of the next generation, the millennials, oppose taxpayer funding for abortion. madam speaker, hr-7 will save lives, we know the hyde amendment has probably saved at least a million lives. children who are on soccer fields today who are in school perhaps even getting married, because it has been -- the hyde amendment has been in effect since the 1970s. over a million children are alive because of that restriction of abortion from medicaid funding. hr-7 seeks to accomplish three goals. it makes the hyde amendment and other current abortion funding prohibitions permanent so they don't have to be included in the annual appropriations bills. it ensures that the affordable care act faithfully conforms with the hyde amendment as promised by the president. and it provides full disclosure transparency, and prominent display of the extent to which any health insurance plan on the

exchange funds abortion. now that is all being done stealthily, hidden from the consumer, no idea when they're buying a plan that it is paying for abortion on demand. let me remind my colleagues in the run-up to passage of the affordable care act, americans were assured by president obama himself, right there, at the podium and he said, in september of 2009 that under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion. that's the president's word. he also said on march 10th, 2010 in order to get a number of pro-life democrats he gave them his word and said, and wrote, that the affordable care act, quote, maintains current hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges. nothing, madam speaker could be

further from the truth. we asked the general accountability office last yar to look into how many plans were paying for abortion. they came back and said well over a thousand insurance plans on the exchange were funding abortion on demand. completely contrary, with what our president told us would be the case in a speech to all of us in 2009 and in the executive order that he issued. you know agree or disagree on the abortion issue, but let's always be truthful he told us it wouldn't be in there and it is in there. there is also problems with transparency. senator ben nelson to get his volt vote, he said there has to be two payments for abortions. he said, and i quote if you're receiving federal assistance to buy insurance, and if that plan has any abortion coverage, the insurance company must bill you separately and pay separately

from their only personal funds, perhaps a credit card transaction, perhaps a separate check or automatic withdraw from your bank account. let me say that again, the seminar went on to say. you have to write two checks, one for the basic policy and one for the additional coverage for abortion. that's not being implemented either. so the premium is all rolled in one, and, again i hope members will vote for the rule and to those who think that there will be no debate and vote on the unborn child pay capable act protection act that will come to the fl$8 and, again you defend dismemberment abortions at 20 weeks, k" >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> where the child suffers

excruciating pain. i yield back. >> the gentle woman from new york is recognized. >> let me yield my 37 seconds to say there is no scientific evidence at all. gone gynecologists have written to us and we have their statements that there is no fetal pain at 20 weeks. i go to representative edwards from maryland to make a unanimous consent request. >> madam speaker i ask unanimous consent to insert in my statement into the record that the house should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's[xa%ñ access to health care. >> without objection. >> madam speaker i yield to congresswoman frankel from florida for unanimous consent request. >> the gentle woman from floor is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure insteadle =yañ leof

attacking women's access. >> i unanimously consent to -- to ask consent to insert my statement into the record. as a woman and as a member of congress in the system of the united states that the house should not -- this house should vote for bigger paychecks. they should vote for better infrastructure. and instead of attacking women's access to health care. >> without objection. >> i yield to congresswoman adams from north carolina foraq÷ó unanimous consent. >> the gentle woman will suspend for a moment. the chair would advise members though unanimous consent requests to insert remarks in the debate may be a declarative statement as to attitudes to a ti pending measure.se. embellishment can constitute debate and become ano inposition

of the time of the member. the chair f must ask members to cooperate by confining such remarks to the proper form. the gentle woman is recognized.us >> thank you madam chairman.cong you're correct, we will do that. and for unanimous consent rom noh request, i yield to congresswoman adams from north the h carolina. >> thank you. madam speaker i b ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record that the house should vote for bigger paycheckse spea and bigger infrastructure mada instead ofm attacking women's access to health care. >> without objection. >> i'm pleased to yield to nid. congressman tu from california for unanimous consent request. th >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my ks and statement in the record that the house should vote for bigger to paychecks and better the s infrastructure instead of ms attacking women's. access to health care. >> without objection. >> madam speaker, i yield to hutt congresswoman tsongas from mada massachusetts for unanimous m

consent request. >> gentle woman from massachusetts is recognized. >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record that health house should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care. >> without objection. >> congressman tako from new york to make unanimous consent ld v request. -- instead of attacking women's access to health care. >> without objection. fr >> madam omspeaker i yield to congressman lornethal from

california for unanimous consent request. >> the gentleman is shrecognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record that the house should vote for bigger paychecks and betterto infrastructure instead ofout obje attacking a woman's access to entati health care. >> without objection.unani >> madam speaker, i yield to nid. representative madder from new ma york to makedam unanimous consent request. >> the gentleman from new york isnt recognized. >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that thes access house should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of thout attacking women's access to health care. >> without objection. >> the gentle woman from north carolina -- >> let me yield 1 1/2 minutes to for 1 the gentle woman from washington to speak as a member of the committee on the judiciary, misses. albini. >> you're recognized for 1 1/2 minutes.ne: >> thank you madam speaker.r i rise in strong opposition to

the rule and the underlying bill. hr-7 is another direct attack on women and their families. it creates sweeping new rdable restrictions on abortion coveragewith for women who purchased insurance under the affordable pert care act.s pre with nodict meaningful exception to protect a woman's health. experts predict it could cause many insurance -- insurers to limit women's health options andzvatead o plans altogether. this bill puts politicians rather than doctors into charge of health care. congress should address the real challenges facing women and families today. at a time when 42 million women are either living in poverty or on the brink of it, congress must do more to help.with p we should be focus on expanding access to child care providing none workers with paid sick leave andmen and ensuring women equal pay for equal work. to this bill does none of these.

it fails women and their families and i urge my colleagues to vote no on both the rule and on hr-7. thank you, and i yield back. >> the gentle lady from new york reserves. the gentle lady from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you madam speaker. i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas, dr. bannen. >> the gentleman from texas is h.r. recognized for a minute and a half. >> thank you, madam chair. t f madam speaker, i rise in strong support of hr-7, the no taxpayer founding for abortion act. it is plain wrong to use america's hard earned tax obama dollars to pay for abortions.sion o on september 9th, 2009, president obama told the joint session of congress and i quote one more misunderstanding i wantnd to clear up he said.abor under our plan no federal w dollars will be used to fund in

abortions and federal conscience laws will remain in place. those ofan us in the pro-life community knew this was simply not the case. and last september the government accountability office confirmed that under obama care ex abortions are being paid for with taxpayer funds by more than 1,000 obamacare exchange plans of across the country.his pr our bill ends taxpayer funding ass for abortion.d fulfilling one of the promises that this president>2m has broken. let's pass this bill and end thehank you largest expansion of taxpayer o temp funded abortionor in american history. thank you, i yield back thees balance of my time. hank >> the gentleman yields back.gentl the gentlemen ladyew reserves. fr >> thank you madam speaker.l:.y i yield one minute to the gentleelding woman from, florida miss frankel. >>th i thank the gentle woman from new york for yielding. bi i would like tol rise in

opposition to the rule and the ebrati underlying bill.ng todayit on the 42nd anniversary of roe v. wade we should be celebrateing it not dismantling it. i heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about pain. you want to know he about pain? think back in harrah to the parallels for our mothers, our daughters, our sisters in the days before the supreme court ruled tépapf women have a constitutional right to make our own personal health care decisions. back then, our country faced a public health crisis as women were maimed, made sterile and lost their lives as a result of self-inflicted or illegal abortions. i remember finding a friend who was near death as a result of a back alley procedure. since roe v. wade, state after state, including florida, my home state has passed own russ eded

onerous laws to prevent access to abortion. and today congress again piles on to the damage hurting the poorest of our citizens. >> the time has expired. >> madam, i have another half minute. >> i can yield 30 seconds. >> folks here's a much better way to make lives better for our children. and that's to allow their mother's to live full productive lives. instead of this bill pass the women's health protection act to ensure that no matter where a woman lives, she has access to the resources needed to make her own health care decisions. we cannot and will not go back. thank you and i yield. >> the gentle woman

the gentle lady from new york is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, dr. bennett. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in support of rights of the unborn. and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule. i along with many in northern michigan believe life inside the womb is just as precious as life outside the woman and must be protected. with unborn and born children have1 the no taxpayer funding for abortion act will ensure taxpayerer dollars are not used to subsidize a practice that to many of my constituents cannot condone. i served as a doctor for 30 years and had the awesome gift of witnessing the miracle of new rife in the delivery rom. i also have enjoyed the experience as a father and grandfather and i know how life changing this event can be.

i want to thank the grassroots effort, thank you for the hard work you do to educate our ki-moon ty communities on the value of life. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentle lady from new york is recognized. >> madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from ridehode island. >> i thank

marketplace marketplaces. politicians are not medical experts. house republicans are scrambling to consider the rule for hr-7. it became clear the abortion ban would fail a floor vote why? house republicans should be bringing up bills to strengthen the economy guarantee women for equal pay for equal work. raise the minimum wage not limit a woman's access to health services. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentle lady from north carolina is recognized.ma.r. >> thank you madam speaker. hr-7, the no taxpayer funding been -x4zjjumo abortion act codifies many emocra long-standing pro-lifet- protections that have been passed under both republican and

democrat controlled congresses. the majority of taxpayers oppose poll funding as demonstrated in poll after poll. of 58% of respondents oppose or strongly oppose using any tax dollars for abortions. during the obama care debate a 2010 zol beegby o'leary poll y showed -- a january 2010 fundin quinnipiac university poll showed 67% of respondents d tha opposed federal fundingt of abortion. in april 2011 c innn poll -- a november 2009 washington post r heal poll showed 61% of].qk respondents opposegú-ç#rnment subsidies for ernat health insurance that including

abortion. a september 2009 international communications research poll showed that 67% of respondents rtion opposed any measure that would quote, require people to pay for abortion coverage with their federal taxes. in other words the american people do not want the government spending their hard earned tax dollars to destroy end human life, period. employers also prefer planazq that preclude. according to the trade association, most insurers offerqtvs part plans that include abortion coverage, but most employers choose not to offer it as part of their benefits package. even nancy pelosi voted numerousdent o times to prohibit taxpayer

funding for borlgsabortion in the district of columbia. since being elected the president signed appropriations into law that prohibits this by t funding. opposition to taxpayerri funding for abortion is bipartisan bicameral and supported by the majority of the american people. it is time to restore the status quo on government funding of abortion and make this widely supported policy permanent across the federal government. i urge my colleagues to support pro this rule t and hr-7 and reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman woman from eastgentle new york isma recognized. >> thank you madam chair and speaker. i yield tone the gentlemen from e

new york. >> i thank the gentle lady. i will correspondent on the gress. demerits of the bill.ommittee how it not before us. a hea i think this is the fifth bill oppor we considered in the congress. not one hacodme a markup or hearing op are or an a-- this is hardly the s bill transparency and the due processendar that the gop leaders promised r us. this bill is even worse. it wasn't on the calendar until - late last night. yesterday, when the republican anti-choice women rebelled at the rate provisions of the bill we were supposed to debate today and we found they couldn't pass a bill today on the anniversary of roe v. wade so they brought le b inil another off the shelf bill that is a terrible bill with no

hearing in committee. no debite inate in committee, no markup new york voting committee, no opportunity to offer amendments on the floor, this is not the way you run or bill. should run the house of representatives and the united states. it is a: shameful procedure for a shameful bill. >> the gentle woman from new york reserves. the gentle lady from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> i want to remind colleagues that this bill passed last year, passed with an overwhelming majority. it went through -- the legislation came through regular order to the house of representatives. the problem has been the senate, which refused to take up this bill for well over a year so book to take up a bill already used. next week we'll take up a up in of bills that combat human

trafficking. i'm the prime sponsor of the trafficking victim protection action. the landmark law to combat the hideous crime of trafficking. we have a number of anti-human trafficking bill that -- two of mine were wacced edbadded by the administration. those bills languished on the senate side and surely we can come together. >> the gentle lady from new york is recognized. >> thank you madam speaker. i'm=l/v pleased to yield three minutes to the gentle come from colorado, mr. ghett. >> thank you very much.

i'm going to state this as simply as i can. there is no public funding for abortion. whether you like it or not, the hyde amendment which has been the law of this land for decades now says there is no public opportunitying for abortion. that has not changed. there is no public funding for abortion under the affordable care act or any other government program. this bill would vastly expand the current restrictions on a woman's right to get her own health care through her insurance that she, her family and her doctor think they need with her own private money. let me say how this would work. under hr-7, people who buy their insurance and exchanges and their employers would not be

able to spend their own private dollars bying insurance that they need for themselves and their families. this would not only be a rat cal expand over current law, it would be a terrible wedge between patience and their doctors. i don't care how many polls that you might cite, the vast majority of americans think that a woman's right health care decisions should be made between herself, her family and her doctor. and certainly not by politicians in washington, d.c. this is an idea, this hr-7 is an idea that has been proposed time and again. it is not going anywhere. i'm sure it will pass this house today where it will go to the other body and we die.

here is my question why aren't we spending this week talking about how the women of america can get better paychecks, why aren't we spending you're time talking about how the women and men of america can get tax credits so that the children that they do have can go to child care. why aren't we spending our time this week talking about how women and men should get paid the same time amount for doing the same john? that's what i think the congress should be spending it time doing, not passing the -- i urge the body to defeat this bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentle lady from new yorko say reserves. the gentle lady from north carolina

is recognized. >> i want to say as forcefully as i can there is nothing in hr-7 that restricts the private sale of plans that include abortion. i there is nothing in hr-7 that t with t restricts the private sale of amend plans that include abortion. consistent with the hayat amend do the bill ensures that federal ans th dollars, wherever those federal dollars come from, do not subsy died plans that cover abortion. it is important to explain that the hyde amendments aonly in theév past -- as we have done our best to explain to the american people obama care is notw subject to annual appropriationsr,

bills but is funded under mandatory spending. therefore, it is important that we codify that no federal used for abortions abortions. that's what thisne bill does. if our colleagues believe it's unnecessary, they should have no problem voting fors it, because past. then it's not doing anything that violates what has been donelet me in the past. however, this bill is necessary. let me say get, madam speaker, g shoul hr-7 simply codifies the long-standing bipartisan agreement that federal taxpayer funding should not be used to oe destroy innocent life. the bill does so by establishing a permanent governmentwide prohibition on taxpayer for subsidies for abortion and abortion coverage including

cutting off taxpayer funding that include abortion under obama car.edde avail and the child health insurance program. the is bill also ensures that subsidies made available in the p form of refundable tax credits under the aca are prevented from flowing to plans that include abortion.t may pittsburgh -- that includingtion cov abortion, as long as no federal subsidyies used to pay for the es abortion coverage. similarly, may offer abortion and wi coverage, as long as the abortion coverage is not paid ntlew for using tax -- i yield one minute to the gentle woman from

north carolina. >> she is recognized for one minute. >> thank youin madam speaker, thank to you my colleague from peaker north carolina, for once again being such a strong defender of life. madam speakeran ict rise today to lif offer my support to hr-7. i believe in the sanctity of human life appeared life begins at conception appeared ends at death. my life's experiences as a mom core a nurse an d a christian have rn helped me to form they core beliefs. i've head the hands of -- and elderly patients in the last moments of their lives. e i've been blessed to have had such special moments. because of them, i know that every life is precious and a madam gift from god,%['y and it is not foro stand us to judge its worth. madam speaker, the unborn need us to stand up for them and be the voice they do not have. i support this legislation and ie spea encourage my colleagues to do so

as well.the i yield back the remainedder g of my slaug time. >> the gentle lady from north carolina reserves, the georgia w from new york is recognized. >> i'm going to yield myself 30 seconds to say we have had heard what's in this bill,ag but this bill was attention out used bill freezer last night at 9:00 ield t against thewo rules and put on thenew floor today. of the we really don't know what's in the bill. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, a member of the commit yes on waysfrom and means, mr. crowley. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. i thank my friend from rochester for yielding this time. if at first you don't success, try something elsecoll again.the repu that's clearly what republican to colleagues ared doing this go morning. >> the bills the republicans attempted to bring to the floor would have required women to go to the police before they could even address their own health

care needs. they abandoned that first line of attack on women's health because, well, it was too weren' extreme, even for members of their own party. but they weren't going to let something like that to stop themst of from pandering to the right wingalth ca flank. fortunately for the republicans, they have a j long list of bills that attack health care and women et cetera access to care, heir so it's easy to swap them out for another extremist effort. their partisan w happy about the expensei of the the f health ofam many women and families in our country. this bill will have a serious xes on impact on the family's ability to make their own health care ose a he decisions, to raise taxes on n -- hard-working americans just if they happen to choose a health care that this majority doesn't like. and for what?guesnt. for my chief political points. this is not what the american

people want.ndthey wan they want an agenda that lifts j people up. they want us to be working on ngthen legislation that creates jobs. s economy. this bill will do none of these things. it is nothing but a cynical attempt to put politics where it doesn't belong. vote no on this rule and vote no on this

thank you, mad many chair. i want to thank the lady from north carolina for her del gens and efforts on this issue. you know madam chairman i think we are all pleased to have so many of our

. used to pay for abortions. the gentleman from new jersey mr. smith has done a tremendous amount of work on this bill. i thank him for his diligence5a his attention, and for working to get hr-7 right. in the right form, ready to move forward. and to bring this issue into the light. we've got three things we want to focus on in this bill. number one, there is enormous bipart sanity support. i would say near unanimous bipartisan support for the hyde amendment language. title i of this bill will make that permanent. madam chairman, what that means is no longer do we have to revote this over and over and over. it will be the applied standard.

the hyde amendment language. in title ii of this bill, what it will do is apply that to obamacare. if the gentlelady will yield me another minute. >> i yield another minute. >> the gent manylady is recognized. thank you, madam chairman. now, the reason it is imperative to do that the president promised on numerous occasions, numerous, that there would be no federal funds used for abortion. no taxpayer dollars, which become federal funds used for abortion. now, this was a big debate, as we went through the affordable care act. what we have learned from not us but from the gao, is that we have in the marketplace 1,036 plans. over 1,000 plans that allow

those dollars into those plans. what this bill will also do is to bring transparency not only to the plans, but to the money flow. so that american taxpayers, hard-working american taxpayers who do not want that i money used to pay for abortion 68% agree with us they will have clarity and certainty on the issue. with that, madam chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> the time has expired. the gentle lady from new york is recognized. >> i'm pleased to yield two minutes to theendlewoman from new york, the ranking members from proposeses. >>. >> she is recognized. >> i thank the distinguishedht ranking member. mr. speaker, i am totally puzzled. i came to the floor thinking

that we were going to be focused on creating jobs, putting people to work, helping our young people go to college reduce student loan debts. where is regular procedure? that my friends on the other side of the aisle were going to bring to the house. where did this big come from? did it come from the committee process? no. let me make this very, very clear. i knew henry hyde. i worked with henry hyde. the hyde amendment is the law of the land. there is no public money for abortion. there is no public money for abortion. this is a radical bill that restricts women paying for private insurance with their own dollars. million of women would lose comprehensive health care.

i just don't understand it. as an appropriator we still have not brought the homeland security bill to the floor. as a resident of new york i'm concerned by possible attacks.ko let's do ourñi work. let's move on. >> i would like to yield the gentlelady an extra minute. >> recognized an additional minute. >> my colleagues i would like to ask my friends on the other side of the aisle this bill just came to the floor without serious discussion when there is no public money for abortion today as a result of the hyde amendment. i look forward to bringing a homeland security bill to the floor. as i began to say as a new yorker, i'm concerned about potentially threats to our

country. let's get to work. let's create jobs. let's do the work that our citizens, our constituents brought us here to do. i don't understand this bill. and in closing there is no public money for abortion. the gentle lady from new york reserves. >> thank you, madam speaker. the passage of hr-7 will be welcome news for the majority of americans who do not want their tax dollars paying for theny#np grisly business of abortion. this bill will make existing policies like the hyde amendment permanent permanent, and there rid obamacare of its massive expansion of public funding for abortion insurance plans. the president repeatedly assured americans that obamacare would maintain current hide restrictions governing abortion policy and extend the -- to

currently created health insurance exchanges. unfortunately, madam speaker that promise didn't ban out. it now joins, quote, if you like your plan, you can keep it in president obama's panoply of broken promises. madam speaker today, hundreds of thousands of americans are coming to washington, d.c. to brave the cold and march for life. participants hail from all 50 states, from various religions and all different walks of life and ages. but the one thing they have in common is a shared dedication to protecting.unborn. the march for life gives a voice to the voiceless and sends a powerful message to the representatives of the people assembled here in congress.

it is heartening that so many americans of different backgrounds are willing to take a stand for life. madam speaker this is not a part pan issue, and this is not a partisan bill. hr-7 reflects the biparse san bicameral agreement that our government should not be in the business of subsidizing abortions. it's not a radical idea. it's a common-sense proposal thatjfñ codifies a long-standing compromise. therefore, i again urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and hr-7 and i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentle lady reserves. >> i'm pleased to yield two minutes to ms. maloney. >> i thank the gentle lady from

the great state of new york for extraordinary leadership on the rules committee and in so many areas for our country and this state. >> i rise in strong opposition to yet another closed rule. despike the lectures from republicans about how creating jobs and growing the economy should be the number one top priority for this congress here we are again instead once again hammering away at a woman's right to make her own choices and control her own body and make choices about her own health care. it is insulting to women and it does not create one single job. it does put government between a physician and its patient. that's what it does. yet the other side says they want freedom and they want the

government off their back. yet on the most personal health care decisions for women, they're putting government between a woman and her doctor. this bill will not grow our economy, but will make permanent such discriminatory bans. republicans claim on their website website. you can look it up and see it on their website that they want to and i am quoting from the republican website -- do something for the 8.7 million people in america who are still unemployed end quote. it's time to focus on creating jobs and improving the economy for americans. yet the first bills that the republican majority puts on the floor does not create one single

job but discriminates, hurts and insults women. i urge a strong strong no vote on this rule and on the underlying bill. i reserve the balance of mime time. >> the gentle lady from new york gentle lady from north carolina reserves. >> i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california. >> thank you very much. >> recognized for two monies. >> also for being very vigilant in protecting women women's right to privacy, and alerting us as to the really dangers in this very terrible rule and terrible bill. first of all, once again, as i said yesterday this is just downrite wrong.

this is a horrible bill. this takes away a woman's right to privacy. again, i thought in our country we prided ourselves on the right to privacy. women have a right to determine their own health care decisions. they can make these decisions with whomever they deem appropriate. there is no way that members of congress should intervene should direct or superimpose views and government policies on women's health care and women's right to privacy. this bill -- once again, the hyde amendment was passed i believe it was, what, in the '70s? we should be providing access to women's health care so low-income women would have the same opportunities to determine their own health care decisions, as other women who have those -- the access but federal funds

haven't been allowed for many, many years now. so i don't know why these bogus arounder being made because we don't have federal funding of abortions. i think women know that and see this as a sinister move once again to deny women their right to health care and right to privacy. also, once again we are seeing how another bill further undermines d.c.'s home rule. this prohibits the district of columbia from using its own funds to provide abortions. why would we do this? d.c. has a right to determine how they want to provide health care for women and have their own ability to determine their own destiny. they're under assault with this

bill. it's a shame and disgrace that once again we have to debunk the argument that federal funds are being used for abortion. they're not. today the 42nd anniversary of roe versus wade, we should be talking about expanding access to a full range of reproductive health services for everyone including low-income women. >> the gentlelady's time. >> let me yield an additional minute. >> recognized for one minute. we should be talking about expanding we should be talking about pay equity child care, paid family medical leave we should be talking about creating jobs. but rather than that, here we go once again trying to get into the middle of a woman's decision to move forward with her own life based on the decisions that

she and her physician and her family members make. the right to privacy is being undermined by this bill. you can't have a right to privacy and keep government out of your private life on one hand and on the other hand say government's got to interfere with your personal and private business. health care is too important women need to make their own health care decisions and this bill would do the exact opposite. it would move women's health care backwards, and i hope we would vote not on this. we need to be expanding women's access to healthary. >> thank you madam speaker. while it's true that the hyde amendment and companion amendments have been used every year, recent implementation of obamacare has ignored these restrictions. rather than renewing various

amendments each year we should make the prohibition on federal permanent and governmentwide. additionally they've been included this hr-7. these provisions require the exchange to prominently provide that one and two if it does, the amount of the abortion surcharge that the consumer is required to pay. unfortunately for most consumers finding out the plans on the exchange or the federal marketplace covers abortion is nearly impossible because the information is not consistently available. plans that cover elective abortion are required to charge a surcharge. these surcharges are not optional. once you sign up for a plan with

abortion coverage you must pay the surcharge. this means that potential many americans who strongly oppose femme could be unknowingly contributing to the practice financially. madam speaker, that simply isn't right. hr-7 will stop funding for plans that cover elective abortion under obamacare and ensure that abortion coverage are made transparent to the american people. for these reasons, i urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and hr-7 and reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan. >> let me first say something about the process we are engaged in. we've heard just in the last few weeks, even as we open this

congress the speaker and others in the majority talk about how we will adhere to the regular order, and we will get back to the process of legislating the way it was intended to be conducted. what hand to that? what is the emergency that requires us to bring this highly ideological piece of legislation to the floor in just a few hours after it had been brought to the rules committee? what happened to the previous legislation that we were supposed to debate? this to me is a big problem, one i think that begs the question of whether or not those offers the returning to the regular legislative process are sincere. so i urge a no vote on the rule, but also because this is yet another ideological attack who

want in some cases this is simply going so far as to say women with their own money who seek to procure coverage can't seek that coverage if it includes these services. to me it goes just far too far. it does not allow even exceptions for abortions that would be required to protect the health of the women or serious medical concerns. we can't continue to make this a political question and political football. 42 years ago, this question was decided at the supreme court. it is a right that is protected and rather than continuing to just sort of pander to the base and satisfy the ideological extremists in our country we ought to be thinking about the

questions that people actually want us to take this precious time on the floor ofr of debate. how are we going to rebuild our infrastructure? how are we going to make sure that kids who want a good college education, the way the president outlined the other time will be able to afford that. i yield back. thank you. >> gentle lady from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i just want to say that it's clear that some of or colleagues have not landlord to the this does not prohibit women from purchasing abortion coverage with their?e own money. madam speaker i would like to yield two minutes to the distinguished. thankqñ you, i thank the gentle lady for yielding.

i want though thank all who are participating for the unwavering commitment and support to fight on behalf of those who have no if voice. through my years in congress and as devoted human rights advocate. i have fought tirelessly for the fundamental rights of the innocent unborn. as pro-life members of congress we have a commitment to stand up for life and to take the necessary steps to advance legislation to the floor. while the vast majority of americans can agree that we must have -- we have a lot of work in front of us to reduce the number of abortions. few legislators have taking anyone meaningful action. -- both here and abroad. federal funds should not be used to payrf;r4 for abortion and

abortion coverage. this will help save lives. in we need to get rid of this patchwork approach and enact hr-7 to ensure that federal funds are not used to pay for abortion. i look forward to working with mr. smith, ms. fox and others in favor of this bill and to continue working with my fellow pro-life colleagues in the house and the senate to promote

legislation that upholds the sanctity of innocent human life. we have the responsibility to protect the unborns, and we must remain vigilant and continue to do what is right for all americans. >> the gentle lady from new york is recognized. >> madam speaker, i have no further requests for time, and i would like to inquire from my colleague if she has requests for times. otherwise i am ready to close? >> we have no further speakers, and we are prepared to close if the gentlewoman from new york is prepared. >> i am. >> madam speaker, we just heard that apparently none of us have read the bill. that is absolutely true. the bill was dragged out of the used bill freezer at 9:00 last night, but if this is the same big we've been talking about

through several terms it still has the idea of the forcible rape being the only legitimate rape and that the irs can audit to see if you were really raped when you had an a% and to prove that again taking women back to the days when everybody said they could not make decisions and that they had to be made for them. if this was the same big and voted to the house by a committee of 21 american then we don't need to read it again. my understanding is this is the same big. it was repugnant then and certainly is now. on behalf of the men and women of the united states. i beg this audience's we know that what they are doing

literally is dismissive of not only 51% of the women's population, we arej93%$u$e majority we women in the united states but this is certainly by any account a misuse of the chamber's attention, and we're talking taxpayer funds. believe me this is a misuse of taxpayer funds. if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow us to strike the three-day layover waiver. to have something to do on the floor today. with 23 months left we should be able to run the house in a thoseful manner that the rules of a house provide for. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text the the amendment in the record.

>> without objection. >> thank you. i'm going to urge again to vote no on the previous question so no on the rule, and by all means no on the intrusive deceptive of my bill that has been talked about ntlela here for 40dy years.. foxx: i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleli lady in north rig carolina is recognized. thank you, madam speaker. life is the most fundamental of - all rights.tha it is sacred and god given, but d. millions of babies ver robbed in betraya this the freest country in the world. that is a tragedy beyond words iffere and be2r5i8 of what we as a nation stand for. one day we hope it will be aborti different. we nope that the era of elective d abortions ushered in by an unelected court will be closed up for and deemed one of the darkest

chapters in american history. of th until that day it remains a hose solemn duty to stand up for life. is the common-sense measure before us restores a tive long-standing biparse san agreement that protects the un -- it reflects the will of the american people and is the product of what is historically efore beeni a biparse san bicameral consensus in congress. this afternoon the house ended up passing hr-7.

242-179, bringing you live coverage on this 42nd anniversary of roe v wade, it marches to the supreme court every year to protest the court's ruling in the case. they marches closing down the roads near the capitol and the court for the past several hours. we'll take a look at the crowd and some of those gathered as they past by. ♪

♪ ♪

♪

[ no audio ] we've been trying to get live footage from downtown d.c. on this 42st and versery. in the house today a vote passing on a stronger bigg that "the washington post" reports would have banned abortion after 20 weeks, but moderate republicans said they wouldn't support that stronger measure especially so early in the new congress. a look at "the hill" newspaper, democrats say they hope the vote alien yates younger voters and women ahead of the presidential election next year. with republicans taking a hard line on both abortion and immigration.

democrats seeing an opening to motivate younger voters steny hoyer say young people have a libertarian streak to them. and you can read more on that as thehill.com. we're going to take you back live to some of the sights and sounds down on the national mall and the march for life, heading toward the supreme court today. [ crowd chatter ]eçu (w

[ no audio ]

[ crowd noise ]

and some live footage from downtown d.c. the 42nd anniversary of roe versus wade. this the march for life. in the house a vote passed to ban federal funding for abortion. it will now go to the senate. a look here at some of the news from this bill. a vote had been scheduled on a stronger bill that would have banned abortion after 20 weekds, but moderate republicans said

they would not support that stronger measurer especially so early in the congress, and democrats hoped that the vote alien yates younger voters and women ahead of the presidential election next year with republicans taking a hard line on both of abortion and immigration, democrats see their opening to motivate younger voters. this saturday live coverage of the iowa freedom summite%jy from des moines begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern, speaker including potential 2016 presidential candidates -- governor rick perry, scott walker and chris christie former governor huckabee, domp trump as well as sarah palin. the way freedom summit saturday on c-span, c-span radio and c-span autowork. we'll look now at next year's potential election and the potential for another

clinton/bush race. and also the gop process -- this was hosted by the washington center. >> thank you so much. it's an honor to be here this morning and talk about the topic that we talk about all the time, 2016. everywhere that i go and i think the panelists would agree, everyone wants to know what is up with the race for president? what is up for the race for the white house? it is sort of a national obsession. we have a panel that's expert on the subject. one of the panelists is running late and when she arrives, we'll introduce her appropriately. and right here in the center is the -- the legendary but lamb was just calling you old, so i feel like we've got to find a -- >> if he's old, i'm legendary. >> if you're not familiar with his show it's nationally

syndicated and constantly at the front lines. ai do say amy here. she'll join us when she gets here. >> how long have you lived in washington, amy? a -- >> okay. good. amy walter, my former colleague. so i want to start -- we're going to plow through some 2014 stuff and a lot of stuff on 2015, but let's start with the big question of 2016. what is the chances this is bush v. clinton? >> well, i'm on record as saying i don't think clinton runs -- >> and you're sticking with that? >> i'm sticking with that. >> wow. >> even though the evidence mounts the other way, i'm still sticking with that, even though we have seen, you know, potential other rivals such as

martin oy mallie suffering a big blow in not being able to transfer the governorship to a democrat there. i will say i don't think clinton runs. i think romney runs. i think more likely would be a romney/clinton than a bush/clinton. you know, i see it being a very tough, tough primary for jeb bush. the tea party movement was a reaction not only to president obama, but also to president bush very much so to president bush. there's a lot of bush fatigue in that party. so i -- the republican primary is very disjointed. with mitt romney's announcement it's starting to get even bigger than we thought more disjointed. i don't think anybody is making a prediction about that right now is crazy but i think it's probably more likely you see romney clinton than jeb

bush/clinton. >> what do you think, bill? >> speaking of ryan lamb, by the way, good to see you all this morning, i hope you recognize how fort you are to have brian here today. he usually charges a lot of money for these. [ laughter ] >> and you should consider yourself lucky. on the clinton -- i do think it's going to end up being jeb bush and hillary clinton. it's going to be another bush/clinton. i am already bored to death. i think that's the worst thing that could happen to either party or the nation to tell the truth. on the republican side i mean at least the way i see it, look we all know that jeb is the brightest of the bunch, he should have been president, he would have been. he was the pick of the litter and we ended up with a dimmer

bulb or whatever met article fors are all over the place. george gold it he didn't, so jeb, you lost your chance. that doesn't mean you get a third one. i don't think the nation is ready for a third bush. to go back that far for the republican parties to someone who has run in a competitive race for like 20 years i think is to make a big mistake, but i say thing on democratic side. what does it saying about the gene pool of this nation that we have to go back to 1992 to get a democratic candidate for president. i love hillary but again i think she had a chance and blew it. blue blood new face new ideas, new leadership and it would be better for both parties and for the nation if we had any other choices. >> amy, what do you think? >> i'm going to go with a -- definitely a -- -- is. >> is your mike on? turn it on at the top.

>> i agree with bill there is a yearning for change, there's just nobody within the democratic establishment which isn't surprising. there's been a rallying around one person for eight year. this happens a lot. it's hard to get in the senate every midterm election. i think there's a greater yearning for change among republicans than democratic voters. or scott walker from wisconsin they have the experience and

they have the fresh face and they're not from washington. they will have trouble raising money all you need is one really friendly billionaire, and suddenly your money problems are over. i think this new, something fresh, something different. yet bush, clinton, romney of course it's a legacy cane santorum huckabee. we're talking about a large number of with the exception of george w. bush you have to go

back to nixon, i think in 1960, to find a nominee who wasn't a second or in bob dole's case a third go around. that part of it, but i think democrats probably have -- may have an easier primary if clinton does prong and i'm proved wrong, as i suspect. no you know the thing about the republican primary is not just a legacy primary. you do have a number of fresh faces there so at least the republicans will have a discussion. after a very bruising and sometimes different conversation. that person who emerges is the person that maybe they didn't

all want, as we saw with several previous nominees, but at least they were okay with rallying behind. if they do core onate hillary clinton, they don't have that conversation. it may be better for them for winning an ease electric. and if there isn't much of a ben back there you know, i think the party should hope that jim webb and elizabeth warren or something are serious about running, and do run just to have that conversation. >> you mentioned the need -- as a general rule, is that something new, fresh? >> i think in both parties just

a quick note on the dynasty question. it seems to me there is a difference, and steve is right. between being the nominee and running for the nomination. john mccain finally got it right. i don't think there's the same feeling about taking another shot at the nomination as there is mitt romney who was the nominee, carried the banner and lost for the party and giving him another shot. this gets back to the adlai stevenson factor, right? he was a lot stronger the first time around. so i think it's -- it's problematic if not dangerous for either party to do that. to your question on the democratic side, i have been --

and i say this as -- at a fan of hillary clinton for a long time, but the democratic party's biggest mistake would be to -- if she gets in to just sit back and let her have the nomination and think she'll be a stronger candidate without having a primary ballot. that is a huge mistake. primaries are important. they shape the agendas, they shape the candidates and this to me this is elizabeth warren's moment. this her b:új>rjt(sp moment. absolutely right. if she doesn't go, she'll never be president and never have another shot. i this that elizabeth warren could run, could win the primary, could be the nominee and could be the president of the united states if she went for it. if she doesn't bernie sanders is going to go for sure, from vermont, he'll become a democrat and he'll run, and something's got to get out there and i believe challenge hillary clinton and raise some issues she'll never talk about. >> do you agree with that, amy?

do you think she so cake el secretly or not so secretly want warren in the race give it a fight and make her a better candidate over the course of a several months, or is it be careful what you wish for? >> politics, and rick appreciates this too as a baseball fan is a lot like sports. you want to go to spring training you want to work out the rust the kinks, this feels a lot to me like the -- siri wants to weigh in. >> i'm trying to turn my phone off and all i good -- >> siri, will hillary clinton be president? [ laughter ] >> you know, al gore, there is ha challenge too to al gore. we need somebody new. bill bradley came in, he got a bit of a fight. at the end of the day it wasn't as competitive as people hoped.

>> here's a difference to me between a jeb and hillary. everybody knows their last names, but nobody knows jeb bush. all right? if i went into a crowd and i said where is jeb bush from? they would probably say i don't know, he's from texas? actually he's from florida. what else do you know about him? unlike hillary clinton who everybody knows he has a chance to redefine himself. she's going to try to redefine herself, the pop you list messenger, the voice of the working people, whatever it is we are hearing out there now from the focus groups but people know who hillary clinton is. jeb bush actually has a better chance to do that. he's old but actually at the end of the day he can be newer simply because he's an unknown. >> real quickly, within challenge for jeb bush, and i say this somewhat tongue in

cheek but not completely. it strikes me really different to run for president, when your own mother las told you not to. barbara bush repeatedly has said it's time for somebody new. i don't see how that's not the first argument, your own mother thinks you guys should stop running. >> although maybe you can be related. how many people had a mother who's like i can't believe you're marrying this guy, i can't believe you would ever do -- and it's didn't listen. >> this is not someone harping from the yow sigh. first lady and mother of a president. >> she knows what she's talk -- >> she says she's come around on it. >> after he said he was interested. who knows, it's -- it's -- i assume that that will not determine the republican nominee, what barbara bush thinks of her son as president. as a voter i would leave that

out there you know, that even the mother -- the person the head of this dynasty so to speak thinks we've had enough of a dynasty. >> and to what happened a couple of months ago. it's sort of baked in now, but it was a terrific time. and everyone thought it was a bad election. two questions i want to pose for the group, first, what happened? and second does it matter or what impact does it have on 2016? what do you think? >> what happened to the democrats? >> the republicans got more votes. >> oh, this is why he gets the big bucks folks. >> you are absolutely right. the democrats got wiped out at every level. lost the senate lost seats in

the house lost and a lot of people are not talking about this. lost governor ships that you should never have lost and lost 500 in that range and 800 state legislators and more and more today we see particularly because washington is gridlocked and constipated and not getting anything done. the action is happening at the state level and particularly with redrawing. >> and the bench. >> right, at the state level. the fact that the governor's offices are controlled by republicans is more than -- they're building a bench and they're also determining a lot of policy, medicaid expansion. again, redrawing of districts and transportation policy you name it. president obama, access to the internet and states are involved in that. so it was a total wipeout. i think the democrats were just totally off message.

they have issues that the american people have really resonated with the american people and the republican ss were and also, was there one other failing. the democrats always have been better at turning out the vote. i heard someone mention voter turnout as we came in. there was a question about that. this time the republicans had a ground game and it was a better ground game, believe it or not, than the democrats had. but we've seen for a while a different electorate show up. >> the republicans are very, very good at getting people out of midterm elections and democrats n> you've been researching this and you wrote something about democratic turnout just today that i saw. >>^ r(t&háhp &hc% >> it's interesting. bill is exactly right in that

the turnout was a big problem but it is, rick. it's always a problem in midterm elections for democrats. their voters are younger more diverse, less economically sound. they're lower income voters. they tend to vote in presidential elections only and they have the opposite of that, whiter older more financially secure voters turn out all of the time that is a problem for democrats. there were[n9dç two issues going in and the map just stunk for democrats. let's face it, the days of a democrat winning in the deep south are just over, and it was just a matter of time before it caught up to democrats, right? and this was the year. so they lost in deep red states. there was no surprise there. i think what was surprising for democrat depps is they didn't have a message and pew came out

with a new study that i thought was interesting with the economic agenda. what do democrats stand for? what's their economic message. we don't have a message that talks to those voters, those female, more diverse, less economically secure younger voters. all we're saying is i don't know, a whole mumbo jumbo of information. the republicans have an easy message. obama stinks. democrats didn't have that message. the question is will they find that economic message to go to those voters who came out for barack obama but they just don't traditionally vote in midterm elections and will they come out for hillary clinton? i mean, is she the kind of person who can attract those voters? i think that's going to be key. my colleague comes up and has a great -- i guess it's analogy between the two kind of voters in this country. they're the cracker barrel voters and the whole foods

voters and he actually, believe it or not, he actually looked at every county in the united states and who they voted for for president in the last election, overlaid all of the cracker barrels and whole foods in the country okay? not surprisingly you will find if you live in a county that a whole foods in it 77% of those voted for barack obama. if you're in a cracker barrel county only 26% of those folks voted for barack obama. a cracker barrel county is one they thinkim)lv is ex-urban or rural. whole foods more urban and this was a cracker barrel election and next year is going to look a little more whole foods election. so can the question now for 2016 can republicans win in a whole foods district? we found out that democrats didn't do too well in the cracker barrel districts. >> i kind of like them both. >> maybe now you're a sweet voter. >> there we go.

>> we're seeing democrats trying to get this message. there is a new budget proposal out this week that has echoes of what elizabeth warren was talking about. i was intrigued that elizabeth warren went to places that barack obama would never have gone. we saw her campaigning in west virginia. the elizabeth warren economic populist message could work. it didn't, obviously. they didn't bring in enough vote but there wasé!iq a sense that that's how you bring in the blue collar working-class democrats that are gone. >> i don't know that i would read -- i'm maybe basic, but i don't know that i would read too much more into issues of message out of 2014 than, you know amy summed it up as republicans said said, you know obama just isn't getting it done and that resonated with republican voters and it resonated with independent voters. it didn't need to get any further beyond that. a presidential election is

different. we will have a conversation about these big ideas that warren is talking about. we may have that conversation depending on who gets nominated and what they choose to purr sigh, but there is a chance for those big conversations and as you said you know, i would say there are two interesting people, one on each side and rand paul who i hesitate to say a warrenlike figure in the republican party, but in the fact that he's willing to go to places and talk to audiences that a lot of other republicans have not necessarily -- that they've left out. they've ignored or don't particularly go after. mitt romney is famous and the 47% that's never going to vote for us. rand paul doesn't believe the 47% and he'll at least try to make a case to them and as you said, elizabeth warren and the van holland proposal is an interesting proposal and it talks about tax increases on the wealthy with a number of specific tax breaks and a fairly

wealth transfer, money from wealthy to lower and middle income folks through tax credits for income and work and what not. it will be interesting to see these are sorts of proposals that never get anywhere in congress, but they do serve as a good, economic rallying cry. i would really like to see that as a, as an issue that democrats decide to run that firmly on in the next election because they're very important points to raise about who is doing well and who is not doing well and you get -- republicans will have to defend why the tax code does have carve out and why it has, you know and when why the rates look what they do for the wealthiest and why the income, even under president obama, the top 1% of the 1% continue to have done very well. >> let's turn it to the republicans because they won. they got the keys to the castle. i think everyone on this stage

would agree, please stop me if you don't agree that they're on probation with the american people. that this was not kind of a watershed election that reoriented with where things stand and we've seen enough over the last decade to suggest that any majority is temporary. the american people are not sold with either party. bill, what do they need to do over this two-year period to satisfy the probation officers of the american people, to say that they were right in the judgment they made in 2014 and wrong in the judgment they need in 2006 and 2008. >> first, i don't expect to get a call from reince priebus or mitch mcconnell asking me what the republican should do but i would give it to them if they were to call. >> that's the game. >> i think you're right. mitch mcconnell has said this in effect. okay, we won and now we have to

deliver. now we have to prove we can get this congress moving. we can get some things done. we can govern. so i get in a lot of hot water for a column i wrote as a democrat saying i have optimism not a huge amount but some level of optimism about the ability to get things done over the next two years because i think both re&'8j0 mcconnell and john boehner recognize that they have to show some accomplishments and i think certainly barack obama does, too, in terms of his legacy. so the ingredients are there for total chaos. the ingredients are also there to come together on some issues like trade or tax reform or some others. so what i think the republicans again have to deliver which is why i'm a little puzzled by the way they've started out having control of the congr