since democrats seem to be insisting on revenues? >> the super committee has a big job to do. they know it. we know it. nobody expected this would occur without some difficulty. but the conversations continue. and i expect it will continue because an outcome and a result is a central to reduce the debt for the american people and it to insure the markets we are going to deal with our problems. >> the only constructive thing that will happen between now and 2012 is the super committee deal. do you agree with that? >> i would hope that is not the case. i think our country has big challenges. i think the american people expect us to work together to find common ground. i am hopeful we will be able to do that. >> to you see the result for the super committee? how you define that? >> it is outlined in the

legislation that set it up. $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. >> by spent time on the bill if it will not go anywhere in the senate? >> we have done for five solid job creation bills this week. this bill was part of our pledge for a america. we are keeping our word to the american people. >> what is your preference on how you will move forward on the appropriations bill? are you going to break down into smaller and medium? >> i have been reluctant to even consider the idea on the appropriation bill. a lot of conversations going on. we are trying to come to an agreement on the 30 to be allocations for each of the appropriations subcommittees. i would hope we could reach an agreement on those spending levels for each of the

subcommittee's decision so that those appropriate chairman can sit down and begin to work through some of those bills. no decision has been made in terms of exactly how we are going to proceed. >> you said $1.2 to 1.5 trillion. does that mean you have given up on the grand bargain you were negotiating with the president? "people can add up a lot of different numbers. you can take the overseas contingency account which is one trillion dollars worth of savings as a result of a drawdown of troops in i iraq and afghanistan. that is already going to happen. some people want to put that into the overall number. someone to take the number we have already done -- $1.2 trillion worth of discretionary savings. you can get to a $4 or $5 trillion number if you need your

$1.2 trillion for the super committee this fall. >> are you any closer to finding common ground with the senate on the balanced budget amendment? are you picking up any steam on that? >> i think there is a lot of discussion about it -- there is a lot of discussion on the house side of the balanced budget amendment. we need to have an enforcement mechanism on government spending. 48 states have such an amendment as part of their constitution. many of us feel the ultimate enforcement mechanism on government is to have a balanced budget requirement. as outlined in the deficit reduction act, there will be a vote in the house and senate after october 1. i would hope it would pass. thank you everybody.

>> john boehner talking about jobs. the associated press rights senate republicans have come out with legislation by overhauling the tax laws, cutting business rules, and exploring offshore drilling. you can see that press conference with the senate republicans in our overnight programming here on c-span. the house will come back in surely at about 5:15 eastern time for more debate on whether to ban health clout -- health plans offered from covering abortion services. here is debate from earlier today on that bill. otect life act authored by chairman joe pitts and dan lipinski ensures that all the elements of the hyde amendment applies to all

the programs that are authorized and appropriated in obamacare. by now i trust that all members fully understand that because programs in obamacare are both authorized and appropriated in the law, on a parallel track not subject to appropriations under h.h.s., the actual hyde amendment therefore has no legal effect whatsoever. hyde only affects labor-hhs programs not the massive expansion of government funded health care. thus obamacare when phased in fully in 2014 will open up the floodgates of public funding for abortion in a myriad of programs, including and especially in the exchanges, resulting in more dead babies and wounded mothers than would otherwise have been the case. because abortion methods dismember, decapitate, crush, poison, or starve to death, or induce premature labor, prolife members of congress and according to every reputable poll, majorities of americans

want no complicity whatsoever in the disruption of human life. obamacare forces us to be complicit. despite breathtaking advances in recent years, and respecting an treating unborn children as patients, in need of diagnosis and care and treatment for any number of diseases, just like any other patient, far too many people dismiss the baby in the womb as persona nongrata. i respectfully submit how can violence against children by abortion be construed as benign or compassionate or caring? the dangerous myth of safe abortion must be exposed. so-called safe abortion is the ultimate oxymoron. and orr wellian of language designed to make a bogus respectability to a lethal act. abortion is by any reasonable definition child more tality. its sole purpose is to kill a baby. i would also suggest that

presumptuous talk that brands any child as unwanted or unwanted child reduce that is child to a mere object, bereft of inherent dignity or value. we should not be paying for abortion. i support the pitts amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, madam speaker. the protect life act amends the patient protection and affordable care act to prohibit federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services or any health plan that includes such service. it also imposes new restrictions on health insurance coverage for termination care and expands conscience protection laws while limiting access to reproductive health services. at a time when our nation is facing great economic uncertainty, and millions of

americans are in need of jobs, please somebody tell me why we are here considering a bill that is a direct attack on a woman's actually protected right to choose and that does not create one single job? let's be serious here. republicans have yet to pass a jobs bill. instead of getting down to the business of creating jobs, they are bringing to the house floor a deeply flawed and deeply divisive bill that will not pass the senate and would be vetoed if it reached the president's desk. they know that, i know that, everybody knows that. the protect life act is both unnecessary and clearly is politically motivated. republicans are resorting to their old bag of tricks and pulling the abortion card in order to distract from their clear lack of leadership.

in april they rammed through h.r. 3, the no taxpayer funded for abortion act. instead of focusing on efforts to pass a clean continuing resolution that would prevent a government shutdown. as the deadline approaches for the joint select committee on deficit reduction in congress to approve a deficit reduction plan in excess of $1.5 trillion, republicans have deemed it necessary to rehash the health care reform debate and roll back women's rights. i want to clear up one thing. they keep saying obamacare. i have said repeatedly that there are those of us, and i am among them, that advocated for health care inuding a public option and universal health care long before we even knew barack obama's name. so perhaps this should be called hastings/obamacare. this time, however, they take it

to a new harmful extreme. the protect life act is not about the regulation of federal funds with regard to abortion services. the hyde amendment already does that. this act is about restricting access to care and intimidating women and their families in the use of their own money. since 1976 e hyde amendment has prohibited the use of taxpayer money for funding abortions unless the abortion is performed in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother. the affordable care act is no exception. regardless of the facts, however, house republicans contue their assault on a women's right to choose. contrary to popular belief, t protect life act is not the stupak-pitts amendment of the 2009-2010 health care reform debate. it goes far beyond stupak-pitts

to impe unprecedented limitations on abortion coverage and restricts access to abortion services for all women. the protect life act would have an adverse effect on women's access to reprodtive services, especially for low-income minority women who are very likely to be underinsured or uninsured. and use partial subsidies to purchase insurance. it not only ends abortion coverage for women in the exchange who use their own private funds to pay for their insurance, but also essentially shuts down the private insurance market for abortion coverage. this act imposes crippling administrative burdens on insurance companies that choose to cover abortion care and bands abortion coverage from all multistate plans interfering withrivate insurance

companies' decisions about what benefits to offer. simply put, the protect life act is a misnomer. . it poses a direct threat to the health and lives of women, it poses -- it -- even more troubling is the fact that it creates an exception to the obligation of hospitals to comply with the emergency medical treatment and labor act which requires appropriate treatment and referral for emergency patients. if enacted, hospitals could refuse to provide abortion services to pregnant women whose lives are in critical danger. this is beyond irresponsible. it is, indeed, reprehensible.

finally, the protect life act vastly broadens already expansive federal conscience laws without regard for patient protection or anti-discrimination protection for providers of abortion services. it safeguards from federal pre-emption state conscience laws beyond abortion which would -- which could allow providers to drop coverage of other prere-productive health services like contraception an even reproductive care like mental health services an h.i.v. counseling. all i hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, especially those within segments of their party, is that they want the government to butt out. why then are we considering legislation on the house floor that effectively overturns the privacy rights enumerated by the united states supreme court as well as increases burdensome

government regulations on insurance companies. congress should not be making personal health care decisions for women. congressmen, really, shouldn't be involved in making personal health care decisions for women. that should be between a woman, her family, and her doctor. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i now would like to yield two minutes to the distinguished chairwoman of the foreign affairs committee, ms. ros-lehtinen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank t speaker and i thank my good friend for yielding me the time. i stand in strong support for the protect life act. i thank my good friend and colleague, congressman pitts,

for introducing this legiation, because this will ensure that no funds authorized or appropriated by the health care law will be used to pay for aforce except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of a mother. this is not something new. this is not something radical. it applies a bipartisan prince -- the bipartisan principles of the hyde amendment which has helped guide this chamber's legislative deliberations for over three decades. it sets the same standards aplide to medicaid, the federal employees health benefits program and other federal programs. the american people, madam speaker, have made it quite clear that they do not want their taxpayer dollars used to fund abortions. and the stupak-pitts amendment, as we know, it was gutted in the senate, the president's executive order stating that the hyde amendment would apply is not enough. why? it is flawed because executive orders can disappear as quickly as they are issued. but the protect life act will

create a solid framework that will safeguard taxpayer dollars. we must protect the sanctity of an innocent human life. we must stand behind the rights of the unborn and we must prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortis. that's why i'm proud to support the protect life act and the rule for it. i thank the gentlelady for the time and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: madam speaker, would you be so kind as to tell me how much time remains on each side. the speaker pro tempor the gentleman from florida has 23 minutes remain, the gentlewoman from north carolina has 26 1/2. mr. hastings: at this time i'm going to yield to a number of members for unanimous consent the first of whom, the gentleman from illinois, mr. quley. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. quigley: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because it is an assault on a woman's health and her

right to make her own life decisions. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: i yield for unanimous consent request ms. velazquez of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. velazquez: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because this extreme legislation is dangerous to women's health. and does nothing to address the issue affecting american families. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentlewoman suspend? ms. foxx: parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: it is appropriate for our colleagues across the aisle to make comments about the bill when they're asking unanimous consent? the speaker pro tempore: the chair would advise members to confine their unanimous consent requests to a simp declarative statement of the member's attitude toward the message, eith a or no. further embellishments will result in continued deductions

of time from the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: further parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: that declarative statement, am i correct that it could include a sentence? the speaker pro tempore: a simple declarative statement is acceptable, an embellishment, because ta-da-ta-da, would be embellishment. mr. hastings: i yield to the jeament from california. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because americans need us to focus on jobs right now n >> votes are scheduled for later this evening.

for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, seek recognition? mr. pitts: mr. -- madam speaker, i ask that members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i seek recognition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. does the gentleman wish to call up the bill? mr. pitts: that is correct.

i move that we take up h.r. 358. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 133, h.r. 358, a bill to amend the patient protection and affordable care act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such act. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 430, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce printed in this bill is adopted and the bill as amended is considered read. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts. mr. pitts: thank you, madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker, i am humbled to stand in this chamber and engage

in debate over such a critical matter like this. like the civil rights movement, the pro-life cause has always been one of securing rights for those who cannot speak for themselves and who cannot on their own obtain them. the fight goes all the way back to our nation's beginning. what more could our founding fathers have envisioned when they drafted the declaration of independence proclaiming to all that america would, quote, hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, they are endo youed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. there it is, the first unalienable right by the declaration of independence is the right to life. our founding fathers must have deemed this an indispensible right for its placement signifies it was not an

after-thought. from the start of our great nation until now, countless men and women have fought and sacrificed their own lives to protect that right for others. yet, in 1973, the u.s. supreme court issued a decision that has changed the course of history in this country, a right that had been protected for nearly 200 years was tossed aside by a court decision to legalize abortion. up until that point, an unwanted pregnancy was likely to lead to an adoption, a process that placed an unwanted child in a caring home. the legacy of the late steve jobs reminds us of the impact that adoption can have on the entire world. fortunately for us, jobs was born 18 years before roe v. wade. jobs was adopted by a married couple in central california. he would go on to be the founder of a tech company, that has

literally changed the world. his was the root of many unexpected children before 1973. babe ruth and eleanor roosevelt are a few of the many adopted children who have transformed the world we live in today. since roe v. wade, more and more women are being persuaded that abortion is nothing more than a simple medical procedure that will help them move on with their lives. this could not be further from the truth. a study of patients in california revealed that women who have had an abortion were 160% more likely to be admitted for psychiatric treatment than those who carried a child to term and delivery. these women who chose to terminate their pregnancies had to deal with the psychological devastation that is associated with such a decision. adding harm upon harm, abortion

is a procedure that brings mental trauma to the mother and damage to the unborn. because of this, the policy of the federal government for the last 35 years has been to ban funding for such a procedure. studies have shown that when the government subsidized abortion, their number increases. the president, a supporter of abortion rights, has stated his commitment to reducing the amount of abortions in this country. restoring the policy of prohibiting federal funds for abortion would be a good first step. the american people in large degree agree with this policy. in fact, as recently as last year, survey revealed that 67% of americans support a ban on abortion funding. but the patient protection and affordable care act failed to include this prohibition and

that is why we are here today. president obama indicated his support for upholding the ban on federal funding for abortion in health reform and that is what the pro-life act protect life act does. the issue of prohibiting taxpayer funds for abortion is important to the american people. and so it should be important to congress as well. protecting the unalienable right to life is important to the american people and should be to the congress as well. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield myself such time as i may consume, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 358, legislation that infringes upon a woman's right to choose. this bill is unnecessary and

extreme and saddens me that the republican leadership has chosen to bring this bill to the house floor when americans are struggling. the american people want us to work together to address their top priority, creating jobs. and we should be focusing on putting americans back to work, not dividing congress on ideological issues and we shouldn't be considering legislation that rolls back women's reproductive rights 38 years. they claim amending the affordable care act to ensure that tax dollars aren't used to fund abortions. it prohibits federal dollars to fund abortions. it will eliminate care by banning insurance plans from offering abortion-inclusive coverage if they seek one federally-subsidized customer. if the plan takes one federally-subsidized customer,

they can't provide abortion insurance to anyone else in the plan. what is more concerning is that this legislation took place, many women who need reproductive health care in life-threatening situations by expanding a lopsided policy that gives them refusal to abortions and emergency care. i was so appalled, by comments that were made at the rules committee and i want to set the record straight. this bill is not simply the stupak-pitts amendment that was debated during the health reform consideration. during the rules committee, i heard that over and over again from the republican side. this is just the stupak bill all over again. that is not true. h.r. 358 goes beyond the stupak amendment. the stupak amendment limited its reach to qualified health plans and no effect on completely private plans. h.r. 358 affects any health

plan. the stupak amendment limited its reach only to federal funding and ensures coverage of abortion. h.r. 358 includes access to abortion services, a much broader term with far-reaching effects. and the amendment limited its reach only to state conscience protection laws that deal with abortion. h.r. 358 expands that protection to those covering health and medical services outside of abortion. the stupak amendment did not create any exception to the obligation of hospitals to comply. it let the obligation intact. no one should be fooled by the argument that this is simply stupak because it's simply not. i want to emphasize, the effect of this amendment is that women would not be able to get any kind of health insurance for abortion coverage either because they wouldn't be able to get a comprehensive plan on the exchange or would be forced to buy one outside the exchange

just for abortion services, which isn't going to be available, madam speaker. what they are practically speaking, it makes it impossible for a woman to exercise her right under the constitution if she chooses to have an abortion because she won't be able to get insurance coverage for it at all. h.r. 358 is a massive overreach of women's health and restricts women's access to reprudenttive health services and life-saving care and a step towards eliminating a choice that our supreme court has deemed legal and remains legal to this day. if you want to overturn roe v. wade and i know there are members on the other side of the aisle who feel that way, then they can try to do that, but don't do it in a sneaky way by denying women insurance and saying they can't exercise what the supreme court says is their right under the constitution. women are entitled to the safe, affordable health care options and this creates challenges that i think will be impossible to

overcome and dangerous to women's health and i urge my colleagues to vote no on the legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: at this time, i yield one minute to the distinguished the gentleman from louisiana, dr. john fleming. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. . mr. fleming: thank you, an let me thank you mr. pitts for your work on this bill and your entire life. the protect life act would accomplish two important things, remove funding for abortion and abortion coverage under the patient protection and affordability act and it would extend the conscience protections to pro-life doctors, nurses, hospitals and other health care facilities who object to destroying the lives of unborn children. i've been a doctor for 36

years, father of four, grandfather of two, and i can tell you that the taking of innocent life is not health care. it is not health care. having said that, this country is still divided on whether or not a woman should have the right to take an unborn infant. however, the country is not divided on the issue for who should pay for it and that issue is taxpayers. 2-1, americans say taxpayers should not be footing the bill. that's what this is about, as well as the conscience clause. this is critical for pro-life and religious health care. mr. pitts: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. fleming: entala, part of the discussion here, requires that health care providers such as myself must take care of women and must take care of

their inpants, unborn or otherwise. so i say to you, madam speaker, today, this bill protects life. it does not require tax payers to foot the pill for those who choose to take innocent life. with that, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield three minutes to our distinguished democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his leadership, i rise in opposition to this bill, the so-called protect life bill. first of all, over and over again we repeat the premise that we're using taxpayer funds through the affordable care act for abortion. we are not.

no matter how many times you say it, the fact is we specifically precluded that from happening. what this bill does goes much further. it threatens to make harder for women across the country to receive health care that they need. i understand the doctor who just said that the termination of a pregnancy is not health care. i understand his premise. but i also understand that we in america have adopted the premise that if somebody comes to the hospital, a woman comes to the hospital and has at great risk to her life a pregnancy which is causing her health to be at great risk and her life as well, what this bill does is says, you don't have to intervene. under those circumstances. i don't think that's protecting life, i say to my friend. in fact, i think it is ignoring

the protection of life. moreover, it does nothing to create jobs, which is what congress should be foe cutsing on during this time when so many americans are out of work. frankly, you have criticized the president of the united states for submitting a jobs bill to this congress that doesn't have a chance of passage. i've heard that over and over again. all of you know this has no chance of pass am. it may pass this house. i hope not. i urge its defeat. but it won't pass. it won't become law. so while millions of americans' quality of life is put at risk because of the lack of jobs and opportunity they have, we consider what i believe is simply legislation to speak to a particular interest group in our parties. i understand that. republicans come to this floor and speak all the time about keeping government out of

people's lives. but this bill does exactly the opposite. what it says is that women won't be able to spend their own money on comprehensive reform for reproductive coverage under a new health exchange. you don't want us to tell people they have to have insurance, but you want to tell them what they can't have in insurance with their own money. i'm not sure i get the distinction there. maybe you can come up with a distinction. but it certainly is a very nuanced one if it exists at all. even more unbelievably, do you have an additional minute? mr. pallone: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. hoyer: even more unbelievable, the bill will allow a hospital to refuse emergency care of this kind even when necessary to save their lives.

i don't think that's what you intend. i certainly hope it's not. but it is the interpretation that many of us have put on the language of your bill. so ladies and gentlemen of this house, this issue has been debated over and over again. we adopted a hyde amendment. the premise of the hyde amendment was that we shouldn't take taxpayers' money and spend it on aworgs. frankly, i represent 60,000 federal employees. we precluded them from using the salary they receive to buy insurance that has abortion coverage. it's their money, i hear that all the time. it's their money. but you don't allow them to use their money for that purpose. now you are saying to the private sector women, you can't use your money. you can't have it both ways. either it's their money for services they constitutionally can receive, it's not.

-- or it's not. defeat this bill. let us let women, doctors, and their faith deal with it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker before i yield to the next speaker, i have a copy here of the law, on page 65, i'll read one title of a paragraph, abortions for which public funding is allowed. this time i yield to the gentleman from louisiana, steve scalise for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for -- did you say a minute? the gentleman from pennsylvania, did you yield one minute? mr. pitts: one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. scalise: thank you, madam chair. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in bringing the protect life act to the floor of the house of representatives. when we look at a time right

now when our country is going broke, it's offensive to most americans that taxpayer money can still be used to subsidize abortion in this country. we had this debate during the president's health care law. we tried to put real language to protect that from happening. unfortunately, we weren't able to get that protection. for those of us who want to repeal the president' -- the president's health care law completely, we sent that to the senate and they've taken no action. but we are here to address this problem. there should be no taxpayer money allowed to be used to subsidize abortion. if you look in the bill, there are employers out there providing good health care to their employers -- employees today yet under the law the president passed and signed into law, federal officials could tell those private employers that they have to provide abortion services in their policy. this prevents that from happening as well. it gives conscience protections so if there's a medical

professional that doesn't want to participate in abortion, they don't have to. these are all common sense proposals that should pass and have bipartisan support and they should also pass the senate. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. i yield three minutes to our ranking member of the energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. waxman: madam chair and members of the congress of the united states this bill is an absolute disgrace. with all the problems we have in this country, the economic crisis, poverty levels at the highest we've seen in a generation, urgent needs for our schools, americans still too dependent on foreign oil and imported energy, what does the republican leadership bring up for us to debate? yet another bill to limit women's access to reproductive

health services. i say another bill because the house has already adopted h.r. 3 and that bill codified into law that no federal dollars would be used to pay for abortion services, whether it's under medicaid, the traditional hyde amendment, or the d.c. appropriations or for federal employees or women who serve in the military or those who get subsidies under the affordable care act. what this bill seeks to do, pure and simple, is to destroy one of the most hard fought but delicately balanced sections of the affordable care act, that was on abortion. this section came about as a result of a lot of hard work by many members in the house and senate, particularly senator nelson, whose pro-life record speaks for itself clearly and

unequivocally. the law prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion. it keeps state and federal abortion-related laws in place. it ensures that those whose conscience dictates against abortion are protected and not discriminated against. and it went further. the language in the affordable care act said you cannot use any subsidies to pay for your abortion insurance coverage. you had to use only private, personal dollars. this bill would restrict insurance plans' flexibility regarding abortion coverage and i think it will result in a virtual shutdown of private coverage for this service for everyone. this legislation also takes away the affordable care act's limited anti-discrimination protection for those providers whose conscience dictates that women should have access to

abortion. it's a legal and in many cases an appropriate medical service. among the most disturbing features of this bill, this pitts bill, it would say that health care providers would remain obligated to provide emergency service, no longer be required to provide emergency services as required under the emergency medical treatment and active labor act known as emtala. in other words, if someone wrought in a woman who may day -- i ask for an additional minute. mr. pallone: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: a woman who may p die from her pregnancy, she's in for emergency service, a doctor can refuse to give her emergency services if his

conscience would prohibit performing an abortion. this is a full-throttled assault on women's health and a woman's right to choose. it's not what the american people voted for last november. we should be focusing our attention on jobs, economic growth and the numerous pressing, important challenges we face as a nation. this is a shameless, just a shameless bill, i urge a no vote on h r. 358. i yield back the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i yield to the distinguished vice chairman of the subcommittee, dr. burgess, for one min. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: i thank the chairman, i just want to respond to what we just heard on the floor of the house. h.r. 358 does not change current law or any standard related to standard 167 of the social security act commonly referred to as emtala.

it states a hospital must provide treatment or stabilization of a medical condition. prar e defines an emergency medical condition as a medical condition of sufficient severity such that the absence of immediate medical attention could be reasonably expected to place the life and health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy. emtala currently recognizes both lives therefore this provides protections consistent with the emergency treatment requirements of -- requirements of current law under emtala. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield two minutes to a member of the health subcommittee, mr. engel of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. engel: i rise today in strong opposition and i must say honest bafflement to this so-called protech life act. i'm baffled because it

stretches the limits of the rational mind to imagine why the republican majority, a grandpa of people who supposedly say they -- a group of people who supposedly say they limit government involvement in every way possible why they can't to insert thems and the government into the personal health care decisions of americans across the country. what's even more baffling is that for 30 years, federal law has prohibited federal funding of abortions. it's one thing to say the government won't pay for abortions but quite another as we're doing here to say that women can't use their own dollars to pay for abortion coverage. here we are with this absurd song and dance that has no basis in reality, it is entirely about scoring political points with the republican base once again while as my colleagues said doing nothing to help employment and create jobs in this country. if this bill stopped being absurd it would be one thing but more than absurd this cruel

legislation would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortion care even if she would die without it. my colleagues who claim they want small government and say they want to get the government out of people's lives, this is a hell of a way to do it or to prove it. . vote no on h.r. 358. the gentleman was talking about public funding being used for abortions, using taxpayer money, for incest or save the life of the woman or to rape? would we deny women the right to have an abortion if they were raped or it would save their lives? i think not. i think the american people can see through this one. this is nothing more than playing to the base. bad policy for this country. let's get the government out of people's lives and vote no on this bill.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i yield to another distinguished member of the health subcommittee, the gentleman from georgia, dr. phil gingrey for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for yielding and commend him for his great work on this bill. as a practicing doctor for nearly 30 years, i believe all life is say credit having delivered 5,000 babies in this world and have a deep proceedings for how wonderful life is. the issue of abortion is a personal matter for me as it is for many in this country and both sides of the aisle on this issue. the debate on the issue of abortion in this country, that's not why we are on the floor today. we are here today to answer one question. should taxpayer dollars be used to fund abortions. and when an elective procedure, a choice, can decide between life and death, i would suggest

that it is an important question to answer. the protect life act is a piece of legislation that seeks to answer that question and set right what the congress got wrong. speaking as a grandfather, a father, a son and ob-gyn physician, i will be voting to ensure that our government does not put taxpayer dollars behind any person who seeks an elective abortion. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: can i ask how much time remains on both sides of the aisle? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey has 16 minutes. the gentleman from pennsylvania has 20 3/4. mr. pallone: i think we should reserve since you have a lot more time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, at this time, i yield one minute to

the gentlelady from missouri,. >> i rise in support of the protect life act which will ensure taxpayer dollars are not used to pay for abortions. it is right and proper we should do so. every life deserves to be born and worthy of life. every life has a purpose and a plan. mrs. hartzler: king david reminds us of the value of life when he pened the following. when you created my in-most beam. i praise you because i'm wonderfully made. your works are wonderful. i know that full well. my frame was not hidden from you when i was made in a secret place. when i was would he haven together, your eyes saw my body.

all the days were written for me in a book before one of them came to be. i'm thankful that our declaration of independence that we are endo youed by our creator with unalienable rights including the right to life. the founding fathers laid out the principle of life and today we have the opportunity to affirm and carry on that mantle by passing the protect life act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. mr. cicilline: i rise in strong opposition to this dangerous legislation, which will, in fact, endanger the lives of women. with only 23 legislative days remaining in this session, i'm stunned by the decision to waste precious time debating this bill, this unprecedented attack on women's health and the right

of women to access reproductive health care. we should debating ways to grow our economy, create jobs and rebuild our roads and schools to put people back to work and improve our competitiveness in the global marketplace. instead of how we create jobs, we are debating the merits of a bill on waging the war on women. is -- this is outrageous. i'm certain members of this body would never dare to enact legislation limiting the ability of men to access health care. i urge my colleagues to vote no and end the attack on women's rights and health and focus on job creation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from tennessee,

ms. black. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mr. black: for over 30 years, the hyde amendment in conjunction with other policies has regulated the federal funding of abortions under programs such as medicaid and together these various policies ensure that the american taxpayer is not involved in funding the destruction of innocent human life and despite the assurances from president obama, the patient protection and affordability care act will allow federal funds to subsidize abortions for the first time since 1976 through state high risk pools. while the president's executive order was an attempt to reassure congress after the stupak amendment did not make it into the bill's final version, it is not effective law. this bill would prohibit funding for abortions and abortion coverage. this legislation also protects the conscience rights for health

care workers such as myself by providing the federal agencies and state and local governments' funding by not discriminating against health care entities who refuse to be involved in abortion. could i ask for 15 more seconds? mr. pitts: i yield 15 seconds. mr. black: this bill is not about a mother's right to choose. rather this is about ensuring proper restrictions are in place in order to ensure taxpayer funds are not used to fund abortion under the patient protection and affordability care act. i yield back my time the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: i rise in strong opposition to this bill. a new poll today suggests that the 9-9-9 campaign threem of the

new republican presidential front runner is starting to gain tracks and the majority has taken a page from the playbook, because this is the 10th month without a jobs bill on the floor, 10th we put social issues and attacks on women's health before job creation and economic security. and the 10th amendment attempt at repealing parts or all of the affordable care act. this bill creates no jobs. it doesn't help the economy and inserts the government smack in the middle of people's health care decisions. i urge a no vote on this bill and urge the majority to get to work in creating jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i'm pleased to yield to another leader on the life issue, the gentleman from iowa,

mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from from pennsylvania and i'm privileged to be on the floor with pro-life activists. i rise in support of the protect life act and we should talk about what is going on behind those dollars that would go on in abortion clinics. think about how cruel it is to take forceps and pull a baby apiece. a fully formed, perfectly formed and perfectly innocent baby pulled apart piece by piece and put into a pan. it is gasly, ghoulish and grotesque and never compel taxpayers to pay tore something that you will never see a video of it. it is a process that degrades our entire culture and to argue that women can't spend their own dollars to get an abortion isn't true. there is a side piece in this

that still prevails and always that cash right up to the planned parenthood. i urge spoort for the protect life act and i congratulate the people who have stood for unborn life so many times on the floor of the house of representatives. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, ms. velazquez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. velazquez: i thank the gentleman for yielding. at a time when the american people are crying out for action on jobs, we are debating legislation that will take away women's fundamental reproductive rights. the legislation before this house goes far beyond that, restricting for the first time how women with private insurance

can spend their own private dollars in purchasing insurance. for women, this bill constitutes nothing less than a full-fledged assault on their right to choose. madam speaker, with eight million unemployed in this country, with wages going down, poverty is on the rise, and this is all that the republicans have to offer. this is why people are literally in the streets demanding solutions to the job crisis, seeking greater opportunity and an end to economic inequality. the american people do not want ideological posturing. they want real solutions that create real jobs. vote down this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i'm pleased at this time to yield one minute to another eloquent voice for the

unborn, the chair of the pro-life women's caucus, ms. schmidt from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. schmidt: i'm one of the folks that read the bill wf we passed it and there is federal funding for abortion and what this bill does is it seeks to correct that language. the hyde amendment clearly states that no federal tax dollars can be used for abortion and at the time the hyde amendment was created, only had medicaid to worry about. with vast changes in our lifestyles, other avenues have come forward for federal funding for abortion to occur. time and time again, the american public is sad. we are conflicted on the issue of abortion but not conflicted about not using federal funds to pay for it. just in april of this year, 61% of respondents on a cnn poll said no federal funding of

abortion. what this bill does is what we should have done in march of 2010, not allow any federal funds to be used to pay for abortion any time, any place in this health care bill. i urge my colleagues to pass this and correct the language that should have been done a year ago. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i would ask my colleague -- i would like to reserve, because i think there is significantly more time on your side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: at this time, i yield to another outstanding voice for the unborn, the gentleman from indiana, mr. pence, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. pence: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: madam speaker, i rise with a grateful heart and thank

you for your bipartisan leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. i believe that ending an innocent life is morally wrong and it is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars and use it to subsidize abortion or abortion coverage in this country. as it stands today, obamacare requires to pay for abortions and subsidize health care plans that cover abortions. this legislation will correct that profound flaw in this legislation. now, i know president obama issued an executive order during the heat of the legislative battle over obamacare, but we all know executive orders do not carry the force of law and can be overturned by the courts and superseded by statute. obamacare should be repealed. but in the meantime, let's take this moment to say yes to life and repping the values of tens of millions of americans and

make right that which was wrong in obamacare itself. let's pass the protect life act and protect taxpayers of pro-life values all across this country and do it now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from wisconsin, who is a member of the house subcommittee, ms. baldwin. i -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. . ms. baldwin: thank you, madam speaker. creating jobs and growing our economy. just when we should be pulling together to work on these issues, instead republicans have put forth divisive and extreme legislation that takes away women's ability to make their own important life decisions about their reproductive health.

this extremist legislation is an unprecedented display of lack of respect for american women and our safety. the effect of this bill would be to cut off millions of women from the private care they already have and limit the ability of a woman to get the care she needs, even if the result is a serious permanent health condition that could shorten her life. so, we now know the republicans' real agenda, to roll back women's health and rights. they have shown their true colors by trying to weaken rape and incest exceptions for abortions. it's hard to believe but a majority of the republican house members co-sponsored legislation to give insurance companies new authority to decide if a woman had been raped and to deny care to incest victims.

thanks to the american women who spoke out, this dangerous provision was dropped. but i think it raises an important question, if republicans are willing to redefine what constitutes rape and incest, what are they going to try next? enough is enough. it is time for the republican majority to respect women's important life decisions and it is time that they start to stand and start to refocus on the priorities of this country right now, jobs and growing the economy. i urge my colleagues to oppose this extreme and intrusive legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, before i yield the next gentleman, in response to the gentlelady, the house has passed 12 different jobs bills already. i believe the lady has voted against every one. they're sitting in the senate waiting for action. i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona,

another leader in the pro-life moment, mr. franks, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. franks: i certainly thank the gentleman. madam speaker, when obamacare was being unceremonyiously rammed through this congress against the will of the american people, democrats tried to assure everyone that it was all about compassion. madam speaker, nothing so completely destroys the notion that obamacare was ever about compassion more than the tragic determination on the part of the democrat leadership to include the killing of little children by abortion in its provisions. madam speaker, as we face a debt that grows by $4 billion under the strain of mr. obama's record-setting spending every day, maybe we should all ask ourselves a question. and that is, is setting aside millions of taxpayer dollars to pay for the killing of innocent unborn children really one of our financial priorities? and if it is, we should ask

another question and that is, what in god's name has become of all of us? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: madam speaker, can i ask about the time again? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey has 11 minutes remaining. the gentleman from pennsylvania has 14 1/4 minutes. mr. pallone: if i could reserve once again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. austria. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. austria: thank you, madam speaker, and i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for his hard work on this bill and as a member of the congressional pro-life caucus and original co-sponsor of this bill, i strongly support the protect life act. you know, we heard during the health care reform debate that tax dollars would not be used to fund abortions. however, this important language was stripped from the final bill and replaced with accounting gimmicks and an executive order that could reverse -- be reversed at any time by this president or future administrations. this opens doors for federally

funded abortions in the future and goes against the majority of americans who believe that the government should not be in the business of paying for abortions. congress must act now to protect the lives of our unborn children and to fully ensure that no tax dollars from obamacare are used to fund abortions. the protect life act also ensures that medical providers and workers are not discriminated against for refusing to perform abortions. these protections are crucial to the health care providers around the nation whose core values include deeply held belief that we must protect all human life. and i urge my colleagues to vote for the protect life act. and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. sutton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for one minute. ms. sutton: thank you. madam speaker, the republican majority is at it again. with no real jobs plan we've seen this majority attempt to thrust on the american people bills that strip them of their

rights instead of putting them back to work. make no mistake, those propoping this know this extreme -- proposing this know this extreme bill will not be passed by the senate or passed into law by the president. this is an attack on women, especially poor women. it's extreme -- its extreme provisions will jeopardize a woman's access to life-saving care. it is outrageous that this republican majority continues to focus on protecting subsidies for big oil and tax cuts for billionaires and targeting women and their access to health care. instead of working to help create jobs and empower women, to improve their lives, the republican majority is instead trying to pass this bill to allow hospitals to refuse to provide critical life-saving care. that means for women in rural areas that may only have access to one hospital could be left to die. this isn't the time to be putting america's women at risk. this is a time to be putting them and all americans back to work. i encourage my colleagues to vote no on this extreme bill.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, at this time i yield to the distinguished gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in support of h.r. 358, the protect life act, of which i'm a co-sponsor. it's been the practice of this house for decades to ensure that federal funds are not used for abortion except in rare cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. this is typically done by attaching language to appropriation bills that go through this house. unfortunately we don't always have regular order, appropriation bills this year were likely to see an omnibus or a vehicle that might not lend itself to the attachment of this language. so i think it is prudent wlat house is doing today -- what the house is doing today. to ensure that this language goes into legislation to make sure that federal funds are not used for abortion services and

to carry on the will of this body and for that i urge support of the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, who's a member of the health subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: madam chair, i rise in opposition to this misguided legislation. while the house leadership claims that this week's agenda is all about jobs, the discussion of this bill on the house floor shows their true colors. just like when they almost shut down the government over planned parenthood. today we once again witness how ideological campaign promises trump needed actions on jobs and the economy. it's been said before and i'll say it again, h.r. 358 does not create a single job. not one. instead its unprecedented assault on the rights of women and families everywhere, to make important life decisions, this bill does a lot.

it limits the choices of women and families to purchase health insurance with their own dollars. it removes vital protections to ensure that a pregnant woman with a life-threatening condition can get life-saving care. and circumvents state laws that ensure women have access to preventive services, screenings and birth control. but what this bill doesn't do is trust our nation's women and families to make their own health care choices. this is unacceptable. some have claimed that the affordable care act has led to taxpayer-funded abortions. it is false. others have claimed that this bill is nothing but the stupak language that divided our chamber last year. i was involved in every debate over the stupak amendment in the house and, madam chair, i can tell you, this is way beyond that misguided amendment. so i urge my colleagues to abandon this divisive effort, put the brakes on this extreme legislation and let us turn our focus to the issue of job creation, to help the american

people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, just to correct the gentlelady, there were three stupak-pitts amendments, two were adopted in committee and one on the floor, which got the most publicity. with the senate they were all taken out. we're going back to the original stupak-pitts amendment. i yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, mr. highsener. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. highs highs thank you, and i -- mr. -- mr. huizenga: they don't want to talk about the preciousness of life and how this procedure takes the life of an innocent. it's been labeled an extreme bill, when actually this is a reasonable step that codifies what this president says is his own position. you know, i have a brother-in-law who is a doctor down in cincinnati and a little

earlier today i called him to talk to him about what he went through in his training and what he had to deal with with this particular issue and when i described to whim what we were trying to do about allowing him and any other med student and any other person that's going through that to object from putting forward a procedure that they don't agree with, he said, of course. that makes sense. when i started talking to him about some of the rhetoric and some of the demagoguery that's surrounding this, he sarcastically said, boy, that doesn't sound political, does it? and that's exactly what it is. the american people that are watching this right now, they need to understand this is about life and protecting that life and making sure that our health care providers have the ability to say no to a procedure that they don't want to do. thank you, madam ir. -- madam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: madam speaker, i would yield now 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for 30 seconds.

ms. jackson lee: madam speaker, let me be very clear. the only no that is being said is the no to the vulnerable women that are traveling in an emergency ambulance to the hospital, desiring emergency treatment, dying and not being able to be treated. needing to correct a problem that has in fact damaged their health and not being able to be treated. not only is this bill unconstitutional, but the affordable care act does not promote abortion and frankly federal funds are not being utilized for abortion. it will complicate the insurance process for all women in america, all you can hear is a siren going around and around and around. that womanly aing -- laying on a gurney, that hospital being able to say no and, yes, the only no is that she will not live because this bill is passed. i ask my colleagues to vote against this bill. vote for life, vote against this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, at this time i yield one minute for another outstanding voice for

the unborn, one of our freshmen from oklahoma, mr. lankford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one minute. mr. lankford: ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lankford: we're a nation that values all life. when a bridge is under construction and a migratory bird nest with eggs is discovered, the fish and wildlife forces the delay of construction until the birds have hatched and flown away. why? because life's important to us. when a baby is born premature, we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to save that child because each life is important to us. we have one glaring and obvious exception to this passion for life. abortion. for some reason we see the life of a duck and its egg as more valuable than an infant in the womb. for some reason we and we think that a baby born five weeks early is worthy of hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical technology to save, but if that same mother were to hire a doctor to reach into the womb and kill that child with scissors, five weeks before

delivery, some would demand her choice must be protected. what our founding fathers considered self-evident truth, that we've been endowed by our creator with certain rights, including life, is now a topic open for discussion in our modern day ethic. i still believe in the value of the instructions given to leaders thousands of years ago in proverbs 31, speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all are destitute, speak and judge fairly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. . mr. pallone: there is more time on the other side so i would reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i yield one minute to the distinguished the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. neugebauer: i thank the gentleman for his tireless work on the unborn. i came down here to talk about life and my colleagues across the aisle are talking about the

jobs bill that their president introduced, which unfortunately, the last time i checked, zero members of the democrats had co-signed that bill. but the reason i want to talk tonight is the right for the unborn. and we were told that when we did this health care bill, don't worry about it, we'll do the executive order, because we are going to take the stupak-pitts amendment out. truth of the matter, if we were going to do the stupak-pitts -- executive order, why didn't we pass the stupak-pitts amendment? the reason is because inside that bill in several paragraphs is the ability for taxpayers' money to be used for abortions. in fact, according to the federal legislative director of right to life, obamacare provides authorizations for subsidies for abortions both

implicit and explicit and let's vote for life. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we are running out of legislative days before the end of the year and instead of focusing on jobs or the economy, the house leadership has decided once again to consider legislation that endanger and attacks the rights of women. h.r. 358 is extreme legislation that puts the lives of women in danger. this legislation undermines the guarantee of emergency care under the emergency medical treatment and active labor act.

h.r. 358 strips the power to ensure that women receive abortion care in emergency situations at hospitals, by making their right to health care secondary to the hospital's ability to refuse to provide abortion care. abortion care is necessary in some circumstances to save a woman's life. during the hearing on h.r. 358 in the energy and commerce committee, some witnesses wrongly claimed that this is not the case nfment response to those claims, director of northwestern university center of family planning and contraception wrote a letter based on his 20 on years' of experience to the committee to set the record straight. in his letter, the doctor states, quote, most patients are healthy women having healthy babies but i'm frequently asked to provide abortions women confronting several troubled

pregnancies. physicians who provide health care to women cannot choose to ignore the more tragic consequences of human pregnancy and neither should congress, unquote. this legislation is an extreme and mean-spirited way to roll back for women. too extreme for women, america and we must reject it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to one of the outstanding pro-life leaders in this house, the gentleman from illinois, dan lipinski. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. lipinski: i thank the gentleman for yielding and his leadership on this issue madam

speaker, i rise today in strong support of the protect life act. a bill which will apply the hyde amendment policy prohibiting taxpayer funding to the affordable care act. while the discussion in our nation continues concerning laws governing abortion, there has been a general consensus to prohibit the use of taxpayer money to pay for elective abortion or insurance coverage of abortion. this has long been in the hyde amendment that annually has been included in an appropriations bill, which most of us, on both sides of the aisle have voted for. the protect life act simply applies the hyde amendment to the affordable care act, just as the house did in 2009, which the stupak-pitts amendment during our initial consideration of the affordable care act. at that time, 63 of my

democratic colleagues joined me in voting for that amendment. however, the final bill that became law did not include that language and the president's executive order does not implement the hyde amendment. the order does not include high prohibitions on taxpayer funding for insurance coverage of abortion and struck down by court or overturned by any administration at any time. in addition, what happened last year with state high risk health plans covering abortions, demonstrates the vulnerability that the executive order has and the need for clarity. madam speaker, today we have the opportunity to provide that clarity and do what a large majority of americans want and what congress has done for more than three decades. that is, prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars for abortions.

so food, i urge my colleagues to support the protect life act and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: madam speaker, let me ask about the time again. i have two more speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey has six minutes. the gentleman from pennsylvania has seven minutes. mr. pallone: i have two more speakers -- do you have more than that? mr. pitts: at this time, i yield one minute to the gentleman from new mexico, steve pearce. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for one minute. mr. pearce: thank you to the gentleman from pennsylvania. in the united states, if you destroy an eagle egg, you are subject to five years in jail and a $250,000 fine. if you destroy a human egg, it's not only legal, but it's

taxpayer-funded. that's what we are here to talk about. you hear our friends say that we have taken too much time today, that we can't give two hours out of the endless lunches, out of the fundraisers, out of the rubbing elbows with the powerful to talk for the unborn and innocent. i would tell you that even in economic times, we cannot suspend our voices against injustice. we cannot suspend our voices for the weak, the powerless. it is our sacred duty to be a voice in the republic for those who have no standing. the unborn have no standing and no voice. let us allow our voices to be heard for these hours. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two

minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: what i'm hearing from the people in my area and what most members are hearing, people want the devries i haveness to stop and the jobs to stop. this bill does the opposite. most divisive issue we could put before this house and this country. there was a carefully balanced compromise that has been the law of the land for a long time that says taxpayer money should not pay for abortion, but that a woman who chooses to have an abortion with her own money has that right. this bill upsets that balance. but more importantly than that, i think this bill ignores the opportunity for us to come together and stop the divisiveness and start working on the problem the country wants

us to work on, which is the creation of jobs. tomorrow will be yet another friday without a pay check for millions of americans. might be the day that a small business man or woman closes their shot for the last time. might be the day that the mortgage foreclosure is executed and someone loses their home. this country is in crisis. there is an emergency around this country that needs to be dealt with right now. people feel very, deeply about the issue of abortion on both sides. i respect both sides. the law respects both sides with the compromise that we have. what we ought to respect is the urgent demands of the american public to come together and get to work to put the country back to work. that should be the agenda of the congress, not this bill.

let us work our will in whatever it is tonight. i will be voting no, but can't we work our will on a plan to work together and put the country back to work? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i yield one minute to the distinguished the gentleman from louisiana, mr. landry. mr. landry: this is a bipartisan issue. the language in h.r. 358 was in the stupak-pitts amendment passed in the democrat-led house last congress. if they supported it then, why would they not support it now? because of executive order? absolutely not. obamacare created a fund specifically reserved for abortion coverage. so what in the world makes one think this money will not support abortion coverage? we all remember, we have to pass

the bill wf we find out what's in it. unfortunately, they passed the bill and we found no language to ensure taxpayers won't have to pay for something the majority of americans don't support. madam speaker, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle insist that the health care law prohibits taxpayer funding for abortion, then they should support the bipartisan h.r. 358 to ensure that it is indeed the case. thank you and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i have one speaker left and i know you get to close. madam -- mr. pitts: i yield one minute to the gentleman from kansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. huelskamp: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i rise today as a father of four

adopted children to give my support to the protect life act. opponents of this bill allege this is unconstitutional and that is not true. while the supreme court has wrongfully decided that abortion is a constitutional right, they have clearly upheld the hyde amendment and language in this bill. this is not revolutionary, earth-shaking legislation we are considering. i would like to seekonk go much further in protecting life. we should not be funding abortions but should be protecting conscience rights for health care providers and stop giving money top planned parenthood and ending the practice of abortion in america. this bill is an important step, and needs to be done. i urge my colleagues to protect life and pass this bill. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: i yield one minute to the distinguished chairman of the pro-life caucus, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: abortion not only dismembers and chemically poisons unborn children to death. mr. pallone used to be very pro-arrive, but it hurts women's health and puts future children subsequently born to women at significant risk. 102 studies show significant psychological harm, major depression and elevated suicide risks. published last month in the british journal of sigh ki at try, an analysis comprised of 22 studies and 887,000 participants, the largest estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion in

world literature revealed that woman who have undergone an abortion have a high risk of mental health problems. you never hear that from the abortion side. the times of london have found the clear linching that women had twice the level of psychological problems and depression. subsequent risk to children born to woman who had a previous abortion -- further time? this is all about no taxpayer funding for abortion . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: gentleman mr. pallone: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one minute. mr. aderholt: thank you, thank you, madam speaker. i rise today, of course, in strong support of this legislation, the protect life act. and i do want to thank the

gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, and the gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski for this bipartisan legislation. we have heard during this debate the health care legislation was signed into law back in 2010, it simply did not protect the unborn. it in no way included clear or direct provisions that would prohibit federal funding of abortion. and the president's executive order on this issue is totally inadequate. executive orders can simply be rescinded at any time and can be -- and cannot be relied upon to clarify such an issue at any time. there is some people that have said the legislation that's before us today will stop women from buying health insurance coverage that includes abortion even if they want to from their own money. according to the bill that's before us, the bill sets out and articulates that individual may purchase plans that cover abortion with their own money. on top of that, the bill also

allows a supplemental abortion policy for those who use a government subsidy to buy insurance. so i wanted to point that out to my colleagues here this evening and i would ask for support for this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: the gentleman is prepared to close? mr. pitts: i would yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from colorado, the really -- the most knowledgeable on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized for four minutes. ms. degette: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, there are some days in this congress i feel like i'm in alice in wonderland, where logic is turned on its head and all of us have fallen down the rabbit hole. today is certainly one of those days. here we stand on the 282nd day of this congress and the house majority has not yet passed a

jobs plan. instead we have spent all day long once again attacking women's health. with a bill that will never become law. a similar bill already passed the house and died in the senate. and the president has issued a veto threat on this bill even if it did somehow become law. now, madam speaker, with only 20 legislative days left this year, the leadership of this body has somehow decided that we should spend the day advancing legislation which would severely compromise women's health. madam speaker, despite the claims from my colleagues across the aisle, this bill does not simply say that there won't be any public funds for abortion. it goes far, far beyond. in fact, the hyde amendment, which is the law of the land, says that there will be no federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or the life of the woman period.

let me say that again. there is no federal funding of abortion anywhere in federal law. let me say that again. the federal law, not the federal employees' health care plan, not medicare, not the military, not the affordable health care act -- i will not yield. nowhere in the law is there federal funding for abortion period. in the affordable health care act, in section 1303, it specifically says there will be no federal funding for abortion. now, this bill, contrary to the claims of its proponents, goes far beyond current law and here's how. it says, women who purchase health care insurance in the exchanges cannot use their own money to buy private insurance

plans that have a full range of reproductive coverage. under current law women can use their own money to buy insurance that covers that full range of reproductive health care. and, madam speaker, that is not changed by the affordable health care act. but under this law what would happen would be women purchasing private insurance plans in the exchanges with their own private money would not be able to purchase a plan that had a full range of reproductive care. that would take away the rights of women to exercise their own constitutional rights to have a full range of health care. in addition, madam speaker, this bill also includes such broad refusal language it could override core patient protections contained in the emergency medical treatment and active labor act, allowing hospitals to refuse life-saving treatment to women on religious or moral grounds, thus causing

their death inside the hospital despite their treatable condition. now, listen. when i listen to this debate, it's really clear to me that the proponents of this bill, they're not -- their main concern is not federal funding of abortion. their main concern is they want abortion to be illegal. and so here's my view. having debated this now for 15 years in this body, here's my view, if the majority wants to pass a bill banning abortion, pass a bill banning abortion and we'll fight it out in the courts. don't make claims that there is somehow federal funding for abortion when in fact there is none to confuse the issues and to try to confuse the american public. because i'm going to tell you something. the public will not be confused. they know what this bill does, they know they want jobs and they know that's our agenda. vote no on this il--- ill-conceived piece of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i

yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from texas, dr. burgess, to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for the recognition. let's be clear about the affordable care act. the provision in the underlying law, the affordable care act, is not actually the provision because it puts in a great, big loophole. the loophole was in the language of the law and it said, providing emergency services as required by state or federal law, which may be changed. and therein is the problem. most of us remember the night before the affordable care act passed. we remember the drama of bart stupak going down to the white house, we remember the drama of the executive order. so what mr. pitts is providing us today is the ability to put the language of the executive order into legislative language and make it law so that it may not be arbitrarily changed by this president or some other president at a future time. now, i want to take just a few moments and read into the record from drrs who have written to

our committee, doctors who provide emergency services, obstetric services, who tell us over and over again that they have never been required to do something that was against their conscience and put someone's life in danger. a doctor from the universities of minnesota writes, in during my years of practice i have worked under informal and formal conscious rights protections that permit me to provide pregnancy care without performing abortions. in my years of practice i have never seen a woman denied the appropriate care because of the exercise of the rights of conscience in this regard. another letter from virginia hospital, as a physician who has worked in emergency rooms for over 30 years, i am well versed in the federal emergency medical treatment and active labor act and similar policies. i continue to practice emergency medicine, i teach it based on three decades of experience. i see absolutely no merit in the claim that conscious laws on abortion post any risk of allowing pregnant women to die in emergency rooms. another letter from the university of north carolina, my

personal conscience directs me to provide the best of care to pregnant women and their unborn children and i am able to do so without performing abortions as are several of my colleagues at a proportion of the residents we train each year. i have not seen a situation where an emergency event or urgent abortion was needed. no one in my entire 20 years of clinical practice has ever been denied appropriate care because of the exercise of my rights of conscience. our committee is receiving these letters all of the time. i submit them for the record and i urge an aye vote on the pitts bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. all the time for debate on the bill has expired. pursuant to house resolution 430, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on the en grossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to modify special rules relating to

coverage of abortion services under such act. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? mrs. capps: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? mrs. capps: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mrs. capps of california moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 358, to the committee on energy and commerce, with instructions to report the same to thes who forthwith with the following amendment. in section 2-a-7 in the amendment instruction adding the new subsection g, strike subsection and insert subsections. insert after the subsection g of section 1303 of the patient protection and affordable care act as proposed to be added by section 2-a-7 of the following. h, protecting the life of the mother in a medical emergency. nothing in this act shall be construed to exempt any hospital

or health care provider from federal or state laws that require such hospital or provider to provide medical examination treatment referral or transfer to prevent the death of a pregnant woman with an emergency medical condition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. capps: madam speaker, as the debate today has shown, this chamber is deeply divided over this bill but we should all be able to agree that when a pregnant woman is in a medical emergency, we must do all we can to save her. and that is what this final amendment affirms. now, i want to be clear. the passage of this amendment will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. if it's adopted my amendment will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will immediately be voted upon. madam speaker, the underlying bill creates a loophole which would allow hospitals to circumvent the emergency medical treatment and active labor act, a law that has saved many lives.

the law, called emtala for short, the patient will at least be stabilized. it is truly the embodiment of the hippocratic oath to and i quote, apply for the benefit of the sick, all measures that are required, end quote. it has been law for over 25 years. and it works. however, the bill before us today could lead to a ralcal and uncalled for loophole to this law. it would allow providers to refuse emergency care for women even if their lives are endangered by their pregnancy. the hospital could even refuse to give a referral. now, i'm a nurse who's worked long shifts in the hospital setting. and i find it immoral to deny care to a woman with a life-threatening condition just because she's pregnant. this loophole is wrong, it's extreme and it's cruel. unfortunately there are some tragic complications that can occur during pregnancy for which

a therapeutic abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. i'm speaking about conditions like severe preeclampsia where her rise in blood pressure can lead to seizure, stroke, multiple or began failure or her death or a condition that american college of cardiology guidelines explicitly states necessitates the termination of a pregnancy to avoid ma merge death. -- maternal death. to the women whose lives are saved by these emergency abortion services, oftentimes mothers who very much want this pregnancy to be successful, this issue is more than politics. it's literally life or death. what if your wife, your daughter was rushed to the hospital pregnant with severe bleeding. you don't research or compare the policies of your local hospitals, you go to the one that's closest. the one you trust will save your loved one. but when the diagnosis is made and an emergency abortion is

necessary to save her life, what would you do if that hospital refused to perform it? to stabilize her, or even provide a referral for her care elsewhere? thanks to the protections provided by emtal, a this can be -- emtala, this cannot happen today but if this bill before us becomes law without my amendment it very well could. madam speaker, my amendment is not just a debate between two sides of the abortion issue. it is about saving women's lives in the middle of very traumatic times for them and their families. so i'd like to bring to your attention a letter sent to chairman pitts from the catholic health association. c.h.a.'s clear in its religious affiliation and abortion so perhaps because of this perspective, they say it's bests and i quote, c.h.a. member hospitals have been providing compassionate, quality care under both emtala and the well don amendment without conflict since the enactment of these provisions. accordingly, the catholic health association does not believe

that there's a need for the provider nondiscrimination section to ally to -- apply to e -- emtala. their statement is clear. the treatment require requirements and the current provider conscious clause work together hand in hand. there is no need for an unprecedented carveout or exception that would endanger women's lives. as a nurse, i respect the conscience clause language a great deal. but i cannot ever imagine a situation where morally, eth click and legally a medical professional could be allowed to stand by and let someone needlessly die. no pregnant woman or her family should be afraid that when -- that she would be denied the care she needs when she goes to a hospital in an emergency. and we need to make sure that doesn't happen. today we have the opportunity to fix a problem created with this legislation before tragedy strikes. so i urge you to protect women's lives and support this final

amendment to this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. pitts: i claim time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pitts: a vast majority of americans, regardless of whether they support or oppose abortion being legal, believe that the federal government should not be subsidizing abortions. some on the other side are bringing up an a red herring to allow federal funding of abortion to dispel the myths being disseminated by opponents of h.r. 358, every member should understand that this bill would not change the hyde amendment, the emtala statute. section 1867-e of the social security act commonly known as

emtala, calls on emergency personnel to respond to distress on the part of a pregnant woman or unborn child by stabilizing the condition of the mother and unborn child. it is ironic that opponents of h.r. 358 claim it will establish an objectionable standard of care when that balanced standard has long been recognized under emtala. the question before us today is simple. if you favor federally-funded abortion coverage, you should support the motion to recommit and oppose the bill. if you believe like the majority of americans that the federal government should not be subsidizing abortion, then you should oppose the motion to recommit and support h.r. 358. vote no on the motion to recommit and vote yes on this critical legislation. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the

balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. with -- the noes have it. capps capps i ask for -- mrs. capps: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9, rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes on any electronic vote on the question of passage. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 173, the nays are 249, the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> on that matter, madam speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote

will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on

this vote, the yeas are 251, the nays are 172. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 1c of rule 19, furr consideration of hrm r. 2250 will now resume the clerk will report the title. the clerk: union calendar number 146, h.r. 2250, a bill to provide additional time for the administrator of the environmental protection agency to issue achieveable standards for industrial, commercial and other boilers, incinerators and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. will members please take your conversations off the floor.

though house will be in order. will members please take your conversations off the floor. will members please clear the well. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the house will be in order. will members please take your

conversations off the floor. is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report. the clerk: ms. castor of florida moves to recommit the bill h.r. 2250 to the committee on energy and commerce with the instructions to report back to the house with the following amendments, section s, protecting seniors from life-threatening pluges. not withstanding any part of this act, to reduce air pollution from waste incinerators as defined pursuant to this act where such waste incinerators are within five miles of any nursing home, assisted living facility or hospital. with respect to each requirement from a major source

facility to implement an air pollution control or emissions retuck that is eliminated by this act. such facilities shall provide notification of affected communities not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for five minutes. ms. cags tore: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, the the bait on the fwmple o.p. pollution bill has been very heated at times. the debate has exposed very divergent views between the party here's in congress on the importance of clean air and on the value of good health for all americans. but despite our differences on how we treat air pollution my amendment offered us -- offers us an opportunity to come together on a bipartisan basis, specifically to protect the

health of our older neighbors, america's seniors. the passing an of my amendment will not prevent passage of the underlying bill. if the ale is adopt -- amendment is adopted, it will be incorporated into the bill and the amendment will proceed to a vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the gentleman is correct, the house is not in order. will members please take your conversations off the floor. ms. castor: madam speaker, the amendment i offer today will ensure we respect the health of our older neighbors, our parents an grandparents by protecting the quality of the air they breathe. seniors are more susceptible to the harmful impacts of dirty air an pollution and our neighbors need to understand what is in the air they breathe. my amendment proposes to do two things. one, require waste incinerators located within five miles of a nursing home, assisted living facility or hospital to wruse the mostest effective pollution

control methods available and two, to require polluting employers to notify neighbors of the con tens. now, madam speaker, the clean air act protects us all from some of the most carcinogenic. item, mercury reduces ability to learn, sulfur dioxide is known to interfeern with breathing and is therefore especially harmful to seniors. some seniors is so sensitive to dirty air they require oxygen tanks. any increase in hazardous pollution will disproportionately harm our

older neighbors at a time in their lives when they are at their most as a rule northwesterly. we can save live we can save money by requiring the waste incinerators located near our older neighbors to use the most effective pollution control methods available. when it comes to the health and health care costs for older americans, my colleagues, we've got to be smarter. it is not wise to aggravate theries prier to ailments of our older neighbors who likely are on medicare. just as it is not wise for the g.o.p. to advocate for ending medicare as we know it. it doesn't save money. the nonpartisan g.p.o. explained the plan to dismantle medicare would shift costs to seniors without addressing underlying issues. actually, the g.o.p. pollution bills here can be viewed as handing our parents, our grandparents, an our older neighbors higher medical bills

tied to dirtier air. let's be smart. let's ensure that waste incinerators located in areas where seniors live use the mostesquive pollution controls. other industries have done it. this small, industrial subset -- subset should not receive a special interest carveout. while our older neighbors would be disproportionately affected by the bill in its current form, they are not the only ones. young people and pregnant women are also extremely vulnerable to an increase in toxic emissions that this bill promotes. this congress has a duty to prevent such harm from happening when the evidence is so clear. one sure way to help our families take adequate steps to protect themselves and their children is to ensure they're fully aware of the dangers they face from specific pollution sources. so this amendment also requires large boilers to notify their local communities of emissions that are likely to increase

because of this g.o.p. bill. that way, families can take adequate steps to protect their children from mercury, and sulfur die ox sid. it will enable our dioxide. it will enable our schools to decide where to put playgrounds and other facilities. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. ms. castor: we must ensure that our families have all the information they need to make the best decisions of doctor -- for the health of their children. madam speaker, the g.o. perform bill blocks critical health protection against air pollution, the e.p.a. estimates that the g.o.p.'s anti-clean air bill together means over 30,000 more premature deaths, over 19,000 additional heart attacks an over 200,000 asthma

attacks that otherwise would have been prevented. we shouldn't let it happen. the speaker pro tempore: the jerusalem's time has expired. ms. castor: thank you, madam speaker. i close by asking that in the spirit of the original bipartisan adoption of the clean air act four years ago we come together on a bipartisan basis to adopt this important amendment to protect the health of our seniors and children. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman -- for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> i rise to claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: thank you very much. back in 2004, the d.c. federal court of appeals in a court decision invalidated the 2004 boiler macrules -- boiler mack

rules promulgated by e.p. ample. in that decision, e.p.a. came to the court and said, we need additional time to come out with new rules. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house is not in order. will members please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. whitfield: in that court decision, e.p.a. made the argument they needed additional time to come forth with a more balanced approach on a boilermac rule. our legislation, h r. 2250, does nothing that. p.a. did not ask the court to do as far as extending time. our legislation is a balanced approach, particularly at this time of a weakened economy and job, unemployment rate of 9.1% and our economy continues to struggle. it's imperative we have a

balanced regulation that considers jobs, yes, but also considers health care and the benefits of the regulation and the impact that has on health care. we've had extensive hearings on this legislation. we've had representatives from hospitals, we've had representatives from universities, representatives from manufacturers, industrial users, and others and all of them, almost universally, have asked that we pass 2250 to provide a more balanced approach in these regulations. testimony has shown that over 230,000 jobs are at risk if e.p.a. moves forward with these regulations. so what we're proposing in our regulation is we give e.p.a. 15 months to come forth with a new regulation. we then say that they need at

least a minimum of -- that the industries and hospitals and schools need a minimum of five years to comply with those regulations. and i will never forget the university of notre dame came and indicated that they had spent $20 million trying to comply with the old regulations and now that they're going to have to come forth with additional funds to comply with these new regulations. so all we're doing is we're protecting jobs, we're protecting the health care of the american people, we give the e.p.a. 15 months to comforth with new rules, 2005 -- come forth with new rules, five years at a minimum to comply and for that reason i think it's imperative that we adopt our legislation and i would urge every member to oppose this motion to recommit and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to

recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. castor: older americans would like a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 170rk the nays are 246, the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from vermont is recognized. mr. welch: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a rored vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is order. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a fife-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 275, the nays are 142, the bill is passed. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise?

>> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the motto inscribeden on the prisoner of war missing in action flag reads, you are not forgotten. rise to honor thomas clark, an airman who fave his life to defend this country he studied at penn state before being accepted into the air force academy and graduated in 1963. he flew an f-100 in a mission of laos, his aircraft was hit by enemy fire. mr. thompson: the plane crashed into the jungle can pi. he was missing in action for four years when the air force

democratted he was killed in action, body not recovered. in 1991, some of the wreckage was fount. finally in 2009, the investigation found the remapes of major clark. next week the air force will bring home major clark to emporium, pennsylvania, to have him properly laid to rest if his family's plot. i'm proud and honored to recognize his bravery and i thank him for making the ultimate sacrifice for his country. he will not be forgotten. major clark, may you rest in peace. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to congratulate wisetta west middle school math teacher seth brown on winning

the 2011 milkin education award. he was honored for his efforts to close the achievement gap and use technology in the classroom, particularly using ipods as math aids. mr. paulsen: the millkin foundation gives this to teachers with a $25,000 reward with no strings attach he plans to use the money to help pay his grad school bills and also donating some of it to the school's perform t.a. which supported his use of technology in the classroom. to seth and all the other teachers out there, thank you for doing what you do in educating and inspiring the next general reags of american leaders. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one there further requests for one minutes?