that has been well-established and it is not unique to the united states. they had similar problems in the united kingdom. the large mortgage servicing settlement we reached recently with a large nonbank mortgage servicer, for violations of the law and cracked us is that were unfair -- and practices that were unfair. these are things, that any marketplace that works, the good businesses are protected against those that violate the law and get a competitive advantage by doing so. this is in everybody's interest to do this. it depends on having information and being able to analyze what is going on in the market. that is why we feel so strongly about having the information on which to base this. we will continue to do that work and continue to be appropriately

aggressive, not unreasonable. it is our job to make sure that they are held accountable. the houses gaveling in next. ther conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. the people's house prepares to welcome the president of the united states this day, as well as the other governmental, judicial and military leadership of our nation. the world watches as america's great experiment in civilian self-government is in high relief. may all who come here today be possessed of goodwill and a shared commitment to guarantee the freedoms and

responsibilities inspired by the soaring rhetoric and subsequent action as of our american ancestors. may all that is said and done become hamber today the benefit of our nation and the dwhrory of your holy name, amen -- glory of your holy name, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on growing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. holding: mr. speaker, i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker: the yeas and nays are 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, the yeas and nays are ordered.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins. mr. higgins: indivisible, with liberty and justice for all indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the state of the union is tonight. but the president has already said that he would ignore congress if he doesn't have his way. he's going to rule by pen and phone. the pen to write down laws and executive orders, bypassing congress. the phone to call lower level operatives, i suppose, like the e.p.a., the i.r.s., n.s.a., and

impose new rules and thus again bypassing congress. mr. speaker, nowhere in the constitution is the phrase executive order. it's not in this constitution. this is not an imperial kingdom where the ruler makes his own rules as he goes along. we all learned in ninth grade civics that congress makes the law and the president can approve it or disapprove it. it's in the constitution. rather than rule by pen and phone, the president should be bound by the law and ruled by the constitution and by his oath. but the constitution seems to be a mere suggestion to this administration. madam speaker, this is america, it's not burger king. the president cannot always have it his way. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> h.r. 7, the so-called no taxpayer funding of abortion

act, is as deceitful as it is dangerous. we already ensure that tax dollars don't fund abortions and have ever since the hyde amendment was introduced in 1976. ms. chu: this new effort is an attempt to create restrictions far beyond the scope of current law, interfering with how women use their own private dollars on their own private insurance for health coverage. this is just the latest republican assault in their ongoing war on women. and it is why i felt it was so important to introduce the women's a health protection act. my bill would put a stop to the unpressed attack on abortion we've seen at the state level over the last few years. it would ensure that every woman has access to the medical care she's entitled to. decisions about pregnancies are deeply personal and difficult and they belong to the woman and the doctor she trusts, period. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. holding: madam speaker, i'd like to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. holding: madam speaker, when the president delivers his state of the union address tonight, it will be important to note what he won't say about the state of our nation's foreign policy. this is because on president obama's watch, america has been notably absent from the world stage. his foreign policy has taken america away from a role of global leadership to a shuffled retreat. madam speaker, successful foreign policy is defined by your friends trusting you and your enemies fearing you. chances are the president will only touch momentarily on the iranian nuclear deal tonight and for good reason. it has gathered strong bipartisan opposition and the regime in tehran has flaunted the deal as legitimatization of program.dowy nuclear

madam speaker, those who seek freedom and democracy look now more than ever to america for leadership. the chances are you won't hear much about that from the president tonight. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, today the new york power authority took an important step toward righting a historic wrong by removing and providing funding to remove the robert moses parkway in niagara falls. niagara falls is a national treasure drawing millions of visitors each year. however, the construction of the robert moses parkway in the 1960's, the new york power authority created both economic and physical barriers to niagara falls and arguably the greatest water front in the world. for niagara falls it's not about tearing something down, it's about building something up. removal of the parkway is a critical step in giving the city the waterfront it deserves and unleashing the limitless economic potential that comes

with it. the new york power authority did the right thing and the future of niagara falls will be better because of it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: madam speaker, this evening i'm glad to heart president will deliver a state of the union address focused on optimism. optimism requires he changes disastrous policies destroying jobs, as revealed by the record number of food stamp recipients. each higher food stamp report uncovers job destruction. governor scott walker of wisconsin has proven jobs are created by citizens keeping their own money. it's not the government's money first. dangerous deficits are unsustainable. the president needs to repeal and replace the obamacare train wreck which destroys jobs. he should uncover the tragedy of the benghazi murders and promote peace through strength to prevent further attacks. reducing the military threatens american families with expanded terrorist safe havens.

the i.r.s. targeting of citizens should really be investigated. the n.s.a. should be restricted, not spy on all americans. the department of justice, f.b.i. eavesdropping on media should be stopped. the president can restore optimism if he and his advisors change course. americans have seen the overreach of big government. now we should work together for a limited government and expanded freedom. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much. the president is going to address this country and this house with great enthusiasm. for the work that he has done with his cabinet and members of congress, the democratic members and others who have worked with him, to make america better. he'll be able to report that

three million americans have enrolled in the affordable care act. giving suffering americans with pre-existing conditions the opportunitier to good health care. he'll be -- opportunities for good health care. he'll be able to acknowledge that this family will be better off if states like texas would have expanded the medicare coverage for her children. and we're committed to working to make sure that that happens. he'll be able to say that he stands on the side of extending the unemployment for working americans, those who have worked and now are unemployed. and, yes, he will be able to say that it is important that we invest in the infrastructure . and i want to be able to say that food stamps are now given mostly to working americans. and that it is important to note that america is great, as we watch our soldiers in foreign lands wearing the soldier's uniform with pride, we invest in the american people. food stamps is an investment. the president can be optimistic to work for all of america.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam chairman. last week amid frigid temperatures, hundreds of thousands of americans marched on our nation's capitol in support of the unborn and values of life. mr. johnson: today it's our turn. our turn to stand for life by supporting h.r. 7, the no taxpayer funds for abortion act. this bill would ban the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions once and for all. the last thing pro-life taxpayers should be required to do is subsidize unethical practices. it's their money and you better believe i'll fight for them to have a say in how it's spent. enough is enough. mr. speaker, or madam speaker today, this isn't just what republicans want.

according to multiple polls, the majority of americans oppose the use of federal funds for abortions. this is what the american people want, it's time for folks in washington to listen, to remember we work for them. let's stand for life. it's the right and just thing to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. quigley: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, today ukraine faces a pivotal moment in its history. the ukrainian people are making their demand for freedom and economic growth loud and clear. protesting the president's refusal to sign accords with the european union. ukraine cran police forces had met -- ukrainian police forces had met protesters with excessive force. the use of excessive force to

silence peaceful voices undermines the country's democratic future. the united states and ukraine share an ideal of democracy in which citizens may live free of oppression and may elect their own leaders. when those leaders break their promises, it's even more important that citizens can freely express their discontent. we all must closely watch the negotiations between the current administration and the opposition. the united states should continue to stand with the ukrainian people in the desire for economic growth and a free republic. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. let me begin by reminding the house that the gentleman that spoke before me on this side of the aisle, mr. sam johnson from texas, is a real american hero and let us not forget that. this week is national school choice week. a week dedicated to bringing awareness to putting parents in charge of their children's education. mr. duncan: school choice means

giving every child the opportunity to learn at the place that best meets their needs, not one that they're relegated to because of where they may live or what district they're assigned to. for decades now our children -- where our children learn has been decided by arbitrary government rules that can never understand the needs of each individual child or family. when kids fail to make the grade, the solution has been to throw more money and government regulation into the mix, but the end results cannot be clearer. this top-down government knows best system has failed to serve the very people it seeks to help and support from parents and teachers for initiatives like common core continue to crumble. be it a charter school, private school, home school or local public school, the fact of the matter is parents know what works best for their child, not washington. we owe it to our children to help them reach their full potential. i strongly believe that every child, rarledless of background or school district, should -- regardless of background or school district, should have the ability to learn. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. tonight the president will address a key american principle. that everyone who works hard and plays by the rules deserves a chance at success. mrs. davis: we certainly expect our kids to work hard in school and play by the rules. in the homes that they will have strong few -- in the hopes that they will have strong futures that include a shot at the american dream. no matter what side of the aisle we're on, we can all agree that what we want is the best for our kids and in some cases our grandkids. but what kind of future are we giving them if they have to start behind kids in other countries, where access to pre-k is widespread? kids who are part of a quality prek program are more likely to graduate -- pre-k program are more likely to graduate high school, to earn higher pay and live more productive live. in looking for -- lives. in looking for common ground, we should look at the recent spending deal which showed

support for boosting early education. let's not let tonight be a wasted opportunity to give our kids the strong start that they desire. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i'd like to call attention to a recent remark made by the kept of interior secretary regarding department requests submitted by the natural resource committee, the secretary gave excuses as to why it was inconvenient for her agency to comply with these requests and allow congress to fulfill its duty in he providing oversight to federal agencies. i serve on the natural resources committee and the document request submitted concerned federal regulations burdening this nation. the secretary noted that going through these documents was a waste of time and money for her agency. yet congress is charged with keeping the agency like the department of interior accountable because we are all in turn held accountable to the american taxpayer.

we want answers to these regulation questions. by the wages in our country to an inveesing overbearing government and increasing country of entrepreneurs. the struggle between innovation and regulation has tied the hands of many job creators. the federal government must stop putting people out of business through regulation and help get our country back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. instead of talking about jobs, or the economy, or the unemployed who have lost their benefits because of our inaction, we are here talking about legislation that strips women of the fundamental right to make their own medical decisions. if h.r. 7 passes, millions of women who work for small businesses or who will be buying

insurance on the exchanges will lose access to comprehensive health care. h.r. 7 is a radical bill that places restrictions on how women can spend their private dollars to purchase their private insurance. mr. lowenthal: it would also make the hyde amount permanent which will cause dretmental and devastating effects to all women, especially low-income women. we must stand by women and vote no on h.r. 7. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, no child in america should be forced to go to a school where they won't have a meaningful chance to learn. mr. messer: that's why school choice matters.

school choice is about the freedom of parents to choose the best educational environment for their child to succeed. for some that means open enrollment. for others that means a public charter school. some may prefer a magnet school or private school, or even a virtual school. others may want to homeschool their children. whatever the choice national school choice week is about celebrating those choices and recognizing that applying market-based principles and technology to education can enhance student achievement and lead to better results. that's why i'm creating the congressional school choice caucus which will be dedicated to expanding educational freedom and promoting policies that increase high quality education options for all children. i urge my colleagues to join us and empower parents with a choice so their kids have a chance for success. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. today this house will consider h.r. 7, which is an unprecedented assault on women's health care. mr. kildee: this law would mean millions of american women who would like to purchase their health insurance with their own money cannot purchase comprehensive health insurance, insurance which is their legal right, because this house of representatives, madam speaker, i would note the house of representatives particularly on the majority side that is dominated by men, tell them they cannot do so. what's even more cynical, however, is that those who are promoting this and have said this know that it will not become law. it's a messaging bill.

it's intended to send a message. to whom? and just what is that message? so while we are debating that, the house is not taking up unemployment insurance extension, which is not a messaging bill. it's heat in the home. it's keeping the lights on. it's paying the mortgage. it's putting food on the table for the children of the people in those homes. that's not a messaging bill. that's the work that we were sent here to do. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker -- madam speaker, when we needed bipartisan action to lower cost and improve health care, congress passed the affordable care act on a party-line vote. given the growing number of failures that have been revealed since the law's implementation began, it's time for congress to work together to address the unworkable provisions for the

good of the american people. unfortunately opposition to the a.c.a.'s policy is moving beyond party labels. last year the democratic-led senate voted 79-20 to repeal the law's medical device tax. since then more and more members of congress recognize there are bigger problems. earlier in january despite the obama administration's vocal opposition to the efforts to boost consumer protections under the law, a veto-proof majority of republicans and democrats in the house voted to pass h.r. 3811, which would help secure personal information on the online exchanges. madam speaker, the american people deserve bipartisan solutions. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much, madam speaker. here we go again. instead of working with president obama and democrats to create jobs, economic

opportunities, and fight poverty extreme tea party republicans are at it again attacking women's health care and reproductive rights. yes, it's another battle in the war on women. instead of working together to, tend unemployment benefits, here we are today debating another dangerous and divisive attempt to strip away the rights of women. madam speaker, congress currently imposes unfair limitations on insurance coverage of abortion and through the hyde amendment that's a fact, even though i personally think we should get rid of all these restrictions. yet this bill, h.r. 7, creates an unprecedented interference in the lives of women and their families by restricting coverage for women's health in private insurance plans. it specifically attacks low-income women in the district of columbia by permanently, mind you permanently prohibiting the district, the district from spending its purely local funds on abortions for low-income

women. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. lee: how many of you would want the federal government to restrict your funding in your local districts for any health care benefit for women. it codifies -- enough is enough. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, madam speaker. i would like to thank mr. smith and lipinski for introducing h.r. 7, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act, a crucial bill that will help us save so many innocent lives. as pro-life members of congress, we have a commitment to fight on behalf of those who have no voice and to take the necessary steps to advance legislation on the floor. the vast majority of americans do not want their tax dollars to be used to paw for abortions. this bill would establish a permanent prohibition on taxpayer subsidies for abortion. for many years, the hyde

amendment and other federal prohibitions on public funding for abortion had been enacted as appropriation riders, but they are not permanent. we need to get rid of this patchwork approach and enact h.r. 7 to ensure that federal funds are not used to pay for abortions. i will continue to work with like-minded members of congress to promote h.r. 7 and all pro-life legislation because i understand that we have a responsibility to protect the innocent unborn. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i found her. 40 years ago i found my friend, flora, bleeding near death. ms. frankel: she was the victim of an illegal abortion, forced to turn to a back alley

practitioner. she survived, but many like her did not. and today my republican colleagues are once again trying to take us back to those days with a new radical bill to deny our mothers, our daughters, our sisters the right to obtain a safe and legal abortion. i have a better idea. madam speaker, let's pass the women's health protection act that will allow all women, no matter where they live in this country, access to the tools and information that they need to make their own private health care decisions. madam speaker, we cannot, we will not go back. i yield the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. today i rise to recognize deputy

sheriff christopher fleming injured last week while attempting to apprehend a violent suspected home invader. when deputies initially attempted to arrest the suspect, he fled to a nearby home and held two jufenifles hostage at gun point for over an hour. after the hostages were released, deputy, along with three other members of the sheriff's office, entered the home to apprehend the suspect. the suspect opened fire hitting deputy fleming in the shoulder. his k nine parter, a russian shebard and five-year vet ral of the force was also shot and died. i'm happy to report the suspect is in custody and deputy fleming is in good condition and expected to make a full recovery. this incident is a reminder of the risk taken by those who work to keep our community safe. we must not take their sacrifices for granted. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire

seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. today the house will once again vote to restrict access to our reproductive health care. ms. kuster: h.r. 7 would callously deny coverage to comprehensive health care for millions of american across america. when women are denied the freedom to make their own personal health care decisions, their economic opportunities are diminished as well. instead of denying tax credits to women and small businesses seeking affordable health coverage, congress needs to work together to empower women and increase opportunity. we should start by passing the paycheck fairness act so every woman deserves and receives equal pay for equal work. this week marks the fifth anniversary of the lily ledbetter fair pay act being signed into law. enactment of this law was a landmark achievement in the fight against gender

discrimination, but there is so much work to do. madam speaker, congress needs to get to work for women not against women. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> tonight president obama will give another speech on the state of the american union. and here are a few acts you likely won't hear him report to the american people. mr. huelskamp: after 1,834 days as president, here are the results. 6.5 million more americans in poverty. $ $6 trillion in massive new debt on our children and grandchildren. 13 million more americans on food stamps. five million americans and counting have lost their health insurance because of obamacare,

and 24.2 million americans still looking for a full-time job in the obama economy. mr. president, i can only hope that you will recognize that you honestly admit and tonight you will apologize for the damage your policies have inflicted on our nation, on the american people, and on the american dream. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barber: mr. speaker, as the husband of an incredible woman who has guided and advise med for 46 years, and the -- me -- advised me for 46 years, and the father of two accomplished young women and the grandfather of three granddaughters, i stand with all women today. i stand in support of every woman's right to be able to choose what is best for her and her family.

and i stand ready to protect and preserve the ability of every woman to make her own health care decisions with her doctor and without, without the interference of politicians in washington. and i stand in opposition to h.r. 7, which would restrict the rights of women and their access to care. i urge my colleagues, every one, to stand with me. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? titistitis i ask unanimous consent to -- ms. titus: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: like those who have spoken so eloquently before me, i stand in strong opposition to h.r. 7. this legislation would drastically undermine a woman's constitutional right to choose and could effectively eliminate access to safe, legal reproductive care for low-income women across the

country. it would also hurt our small businesses by raising taxes on those who offer their employees economy hencive health insurance -- comprehensive health insurance. republicans have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of understanding about basic women's health care and this bill is just one more example of their continuing attack on women's rights. h.r. 7 is a step backward, it's nothing more than a distraction from the critical work we should be doing to pass immigration reform, strengthen our economy and create jobs. we apparently have no time to vote on unemployment benefits for our neighbors, but plenty of time to take away a woman's right to choose. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this harmful and unconstitutional legislation. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: thank you, madam

speaker. many who are unemployed through no fault of their own remember december 28. that is when the unemployment insurance was not extended and congress failed them. 1. million americans -- 1.3 million americans were without any support as of that day. in six months that number will grow to 1.9 million. 72,000 a week, one person every eight seconds. the real problem that we face is really the lack of job opportunities. madam speaker, we must bring the president's proposal for job creation to the floor. remember, you have to be actively seeking work before you can receive unemployment insurance. see the problem? no efforts to create jobs and no bill there to protect those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. this is the highest long-term unemployment this country has seen since world war ii. people need government to

recognize this problem. and we have failed. we need to go back and know why unemployment insurance is created in the first place. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. hanabusa: we need to be that compassionate country again. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: madam speaker, for years the other side of the aisle has been trying to get between a woman and her doctor. now they're trying to become -- come between a woman and her insurance company. they want to open a new front on the war on women and this one cruelly focuses on poor women. the law of the land is already clear. there is no federal funding for abortions. but with h.r. 7, which will be

on the floor today, even private insurance plans could be restricted from covering abortion if you get a government subsidy. so if you're a low-income woman who needs help affording health care insurance, this bill is aimed squarely at you. rather than tackling the real problems of economic growth and job creation, the other side of the aisle seems obsessed with curbing a woman's reproductive rights. they may not want to call this a war on women, but i would point out to my colleagues that women and only women are the casualties from this multifaceted assault on a woman's right to choose and reproductive rights. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom illinois seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

i lipinski: madam speaker, am a strong supporter of catholic education. i rise today to recognize the outstanding contributions that catholic schools have made to our nation. next week is the 40th annual national catholic school it's week and i've introduced h.r. -- schools week, and i've introduced h.res. 451 to honor the work done by parents, teachers, administrators and parishioners for the more than two million children and over 6,600 catholic schools in america. this year's theme, catholic schools, communities of faith, knowledge and service, highlights the values that are the centerpiece of the catholic school education. later on this week, i'll be visiting several schools, , one ing one in chicago in lamont and one in oak lawn. madam speaker, i ask my

colleagues to join me in honoringing the catholic schools across our nation for the outstanding education they provide to so many americans. i yield back the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: madam speaker, by direction of committee on rules, i call up house resolution 465 and skr to -- and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 81, house resolution 465, resolved that upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill, h.r. 7, to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waved. an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-33 shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived.

the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally guided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. and the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. and, two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill, h.r. 2642, to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the department of agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes. all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. the conference report shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the conference report to its

adoption without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate and, two, one motion to recommit if applicable. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i raise a point of order against house resolution 465. because the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act. the resolution in waiving all points of order against consideration of both h.r. 7, the antiabortion bill, and the conference report on h.r. 2642, the farm bill, waivings sections 425 of the congress -- waives sections 425 of the congressional budget act, therefore causing a violation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act of 1974. the gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule and the gentleman from massachusetts and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration.

following debate, the chair will put the question of consideration as a statutory means of disposing of the point of order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. first of all, let me just say that it is outrageous, absolutely outrageous, that the republican leadership has combined a major piece of anti-abortion legislation with the farm bill conference report into one single rule. restricting our ability to debate both of these important issues. there's an $8.6 billion cut to snap in this conference report. a cut that will only affect poor families, primarily the elderly and the disabled. besides being cruel canned heartless, this cut -- and heartless, this cut is also an unfunded mandate. if states, cities and towns want to prevent hunger from getting worse, they'll have to spend more money out of their own budgets. i know republican mie republican friendses are on a big hurry to go off on their

retreat to some luxurious resort, but maybe we could have found another hour somewhere. madam speaker, i'm honored to serve on the agriculture committee. i was honored to serve on the conference committee for the farm bill. i want to thank chairman lucas and ranking member peterson and all my colleagues for their hard work. i want a farm bill. i want to support the farm bill conference. but from the beginning of this process, i made my position very clear, that i will not vote for a farm bill that makes hunger worse in america. and this farm bill fails that basic test. if this bill passes, hundreds of thousands of vulnerable americans will have less to eat. period. some people will will say, well, an $8 billion cut in snap is better than what the house republicans wanted to do. that's a strange argument, madam speaker. it's like saying, thank goodness the burglar only took the silver because he could have taken the jewelry too. the fact of the matter is, that any cut to snap will be piled on top of the cut that already went into effect last fall.

and any cut to snap will result in more americans going hungry and any cut in snap will increase the financial burdens on state and local governments. there are those, madam speaker, who claim that the heat and eat program is some sort of a loophole. it isn't. it's a policy decision. it's a way for states to help some of our neighbors who are struggling through very difficult times. but even if this is a loophole, i ask my friends, of all the loopholes in federal law, of all the special interest giveaways, this is the one that you're going to target? this is the one that's in your crosshairs? a program that helps poor people get enough food to eat? my goodness. there are those who say that states and local governments of food banks or food pantries should pick up the slack. have any of those people actually ever been to a food bank? have they ever talked to a director of a food pantry? because they are already at capacity, madam speaker. they can't meet the needs of

the clients that they already have. my republican friends have made their priorities very clear. they want to dismantle the social safety net they want to get the federal government out of the business of helping people get enough to eat. but i also want to say that i'm disappointed, madam speaker. in the people of my own party here in the congress and the white house rowho are going along with this. tonight the president of the united states will stand in this chamber and deliver the state of the union. and when he talks about income inequality and helping people get into the middle class, all of us democrats, i hope some republicans, will stand up and cheer. but before that happens, we have an opportunity to put our votes where our cheers are. we have a chance to match our actions with our rhetoric. and the way to do that is to vote no on this conference report. so i say to my fellow democrats, if cutting snap or other programs that help poor people is the price of admission to get anything done, any piece of major legislation

passed, then we have strayed very, very far from our principles. madam speaker, again, i want to remind my colleagues that this is an unfunded mandate because there will be an increased burden on states and cities and towns to deal with this issue of hunger. and by the way, madam speaker, when people are hungry, when kids are hungry, they don't learn in school. when people are hungry, they end up going to the emergency room more often. when children are hungry, they end up -- when they get a common cold, end up staying in the hospital for a period of time. that all costs us a great deal in terms of not only federal money but state and local money. so in my opinion, this is an unfunded mandate and this is a burden on the states and, madam speaker, how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mcgovern: i yield the remaining time to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. delauro: i thank the

gentleman from massachusetts and i thank him for his dedication to this issue, that people in the united states of america should not go hungry. i rise in support of my colleague's point of order. this farm bill contains cuts to the food stamp program that will transfer the responsibility to states and cities to provide food to their families and may i remind the members of this body that food stamps, our nation's most important antihunger program, those program -- that program was just cut two months ago in november. . because of the recrept expiration of the recovery act provisions, food stamps have already been cut by $5 billion for next year. three is the cut over years. what does it mean? it means that a family of four

in $36 or 16 meals a month support. that is already the difference between health and hunger. now the savage cuts in this farm bill would push americans already living on the edge that much closer to the brink. because of the 8.5 billion in cuts here, 850,000 households translates into 1.7 million americans, will lose an average of $90 a month or 66 more meals a month. low-income seniors working poor with family, individuals with disabilities, veterans would be particularly impacted by these cruel cuts. perhaps the members have forgotten, because we eat well, that's because we eat well every

day. but members have forgotten hunger is an abomination. we are talking about men and women experiencing real physical trauma. children who cannot concentrate in school because all they can think about is food. seniors who are forced to decide in what has been a polar vortex, a environmentalent winter season whether or not they will go hungry or be cold. this is a problem all across the land. in my connecticut district nearly one in seven households are not sure if they can afford enough food to feed their families. in mississippi, 24 1/2% suffer food hardship, that's nearly one in four people. west virginia, kentucky, 22%. california just over 19%. the continued existence of hunger in america is a disgrace. that's why in the past it's been a strong position, a bipartisan in fighting hunger and

supporting nutrition. this farm bill flies in the face of that tradition. it takes food from the poor to pay for crop subsidies for the rich. food stamps have one of the lowest error rates of any government program. it's a powerful positive impact on economic growth because he they get resources into the hands of families who are going to spend them right away. the research shows that for every $5 of federal food stamp benefit it generates nearly twice that in economic activity. children's health watch, those researchers found that after collecting 14 years' of data, over 20,000 low-income families, that when families experience a loss or reduction in food stamp benefits, they are more likely to be food insecure, to be in poor health, and their children experience intensified developmental delays relativele to their peers. most importantly, food stamps are the right thing to do. it is the job of a good government to help vulnerable families to get back on their

feet. and cutting food stamps will cause more hunger and health problems for americans. in the words of harry truman, and i quote, nothing is more important. in our national life than the welfare of our children and the proper nourishment comes first in attaining this welfare. this bill, this bill flies in the face of that. it will cut $8.5 billion. you couple that with the cuts that have already been made in the economic recovery program, and that is almost $20 billion in cut to the food stamp program. some of my colleagues will say, we only did $8.5 billion in the farm bill. let me just tell you, it may come from two sources, but the constituency is the same. who are we as a nation? where are our values? if we can provide crop subsidies

for the richest farmers in this nation and tell them that they can make $900,000 a year before they will not be able to get a subsidy, or that 26 individuals who get a premium subsidy for crop insurance of at least $1 million a year, those folks are high on the hog, they got three squares a day. when we provide $1.40, it is $1.40 per meal for food stamp beneficiaries, the people at the top end don't have an income cap, they don't have any asset -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. delauro: that's not true for food stamp recipients. there are income limitations and asset limitations. who are we as a nation? what are we about? let's not take food out of the mouths of families and their children. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker.

the i rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from is recognized for 10 minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. the question before the house is should the house now consider h.res. 465? this point of order, madam speaker, is a dilatory tactic. i will remind the gentleman that each bill under this rule will be separately considered and debatable on the house floor. madam speaker, in order to alou the house -- allow the house to continue its scheduled business for the day, i urge members to vote yes on the question of consideration of the resolution and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman has the only remaining time. do you yield back? ms. foxx: the gentleman's time from massachusetts has expired? the speaker pro tempore: it has expired. ms. foxx: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired.

the question is will the house now consideration the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yes have it. the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgone: i raise a point of order against house resolution 465 under clause 9 of rule 21 because the resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against h.r. 7, the abortion bill, and the conference report on h.r. 2642, the farm bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts makes a point of order that the resolution violates 9-c of rule 21. under clause 9-c of rule 21, the gentleman from massachusetts and the gentlewoman from north carolina each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. following that debate, the chair will put the question of

consideration as follows, will the house now consider the resolution. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, the conference report on the farm bill was made public at around 7:30 last night. with nearly 1,000 pages dumped on us at the last minute, we know that no one has had a chance to read the entire thing. i'm a conferee, and even i had a few -- i had an extra few hours to try to digest this monstrosity of a bill, but who knows what's in this bill, and that's why i'm raising this earmark's point of order. because as i said earlier, madam speaker, one of the things that's most troubling to me and a number of my colleagues, again, is this attack on poor people. is this attack on snap, a program that does nothing more than provide food to people. and madam speaker, i want to ask

unanimous consent to insert in the record a letter that was addressed to congress from the mayors of baton rouge, boston, dallas, district of columbia, gary, hartford, ithaca, los angeles, madison, memphis, new york, providence, raleigh, sacramento, salt lake city, san diego, san francisco, seattle, and tucson urging us in both the house and senate to reject these snap cuts. these mayors have made it very clear that it would have an adverse impact on the people that they represent. they have stressed in this letter the importance of snap to help people to be able to put food on the table for their children. i also want to ask -- i also want to -- madam speaker, reference a statement from the food research and action center, otherwise known as track -- frack, they are urging us to vote against this conference

committee report if the snap cuts remain in the bill. they have said that snap is essential to the nutrition and the health and well-being of 47 million americans each month. but every participant suffered a significant cut in benefits beginning last november 1. as the gentlelady from connecticut made mention of, on november 1, and $11 billion cut in snap went into effect. all 47 million beneficiaries received a cut. food prices didn't go down, but their benefit went down. and now we are going to pile on. and there are some who say that, well, it doesn't affect all 47 million. it's only going to be about a billion or so people that will be adversely impacted. but those people that will be adversely impacted stand a great deal to lose. the november 1 cut for the average family of three resulted n a $30 a month benefit cut. you add this on top of it it's another $80 to $90.

that family of three will receive about $120 to $130 less per month. what are they going to do? even before these cuts went into effect they were going to food banks, they were going to charities looking for help because their benefit was so meager to begin with. what are they supposed to do? i think in this house of representatives, i don't care what your political party or ideology is, it should never, ever, ever, ever be acceptable that anybody in this country, the united states in america, the richest country in the history of the world should go hungry. and the fact that we are moving forward the farm bill a deal that contains this $8.6 billion in cuts, i think is outrageous. i'm all for a deal. i want a farm bill. i'm willing to swallow a lot of things in this bill that i don't like, but the price of doing that should not be to increase hunger and poverty in this country. and that's what this bill does.

we talk about deals. behind these deals are real people. i mean they are our neighbors. they are in every community. there is not a congressional district in our country that is hunger free. these people are everywhere. we have an obligation to not turn our backs on them. and snap is one of the most efficiently run federal programs with one of the lowest error rates. this is important. snap in and of itself is not going to solve the problem of hunger or poverty. but the bottom line is by cutting it the way we are doing, we are making things worse for people. i stood on the floor today and i read the descriptions of individuals in massachusetts who, if this farm bill passes, will see a significant cut in their benefit. and their question to me is, what do i do? where do i go? tell me how to put food on the table for my kids. tell me how i'm going to survive.

we should not be making the lives of people who are suffering more miserable. that's not our job. i want to ask unanimous consent to insert the entire food research in action center statement into the record, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, in massachusetts alone there will be 125,000 snap households that could suffer up to a $70 to $80 a month cut in snap benefit if this farm bill goes through as it is. there is no reason in the world that we should be cutting this program. this is not a a.t.m. machine to pay for big farm subsidies. this is not a a.t.m. machine to make up for the fraud and the waste and the abuse of the crop insurance program. again i will repeat to my colleagues, tonight we are going to hear the president talk about income inequality. and i -- my criticism here is it is a bipartisan criticism, i'm critical of the republicans for the cruel cuts that were proposed in the original farm

bill up to $40 billion, and i'm frustrated that there are people in my own bipartisan, including in this white house, who don't believe this is worth the fight. this is worth the fight. the if this is not worth the fight, i don't know what the hell we are here for. if making sure people in this country don't go hungry is not a priority, then i don't know what we are doing here. we could explain this away. we could rationalize it and justify it. i have heard all the talking points. my favorite is that nobody will actually lose their benefit. that negligence to tell you that their benefit will be cut down to almost nothing. yes, they'll still get a little benefit but it might be $15 a month instead of $115 a month. is that the best we can do? both sides of the aisle, this never used to be a partisan issue. this never used to be a polarizing issue. now all of a sudden it has become one? again i plead with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's come together and get a farm bill done, but not at this price.

not at this price. i urge the white house to stand up and fight alongside us on this. they should be taking greater leadership role on this. it's not enough, just enough to talk about income inequality. you have to fight for it, too. madam speaker, i would like to yield my remaining time to the gentlelady from connecticut. how much time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has three minutes. mr. mcgone: i yield her the additional remaining three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . ms. delauro: i too want a farm bill. as a matter of fact, i had the honor of helping to negotiate the 2008 farm bill, the nutrition abortion of it, which we maintained that historic coalition between the safety net for agriculture and the safety net for nutrition. i think it's almost unbelievable that we've got a 1,000-page bill. i want to say to the american public here that you should ask members of congress whether or not they read the bill. we went over and over and over this when we got to the health care bill. some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle kept

asking us whether or not we'd read the bill. no one has really read this bill. there are four people who negotiated this work. we could well be with significant earmarks in this effort. let me point out the reverse robin hood legislation here. steals food from the poor to help pay for handouts to wealthy agri-business. let me just give you a couple of examples. in violation of the congressional rule that provisions passed by both bodies should not be changed, the conference for people more than doubled the annual primary payments from $50,000 to $125,000. a $250,000 couple, they reopened the loophole that was closed in the house and in the senate that allows wealthy farmers to collect far more than the nominal payment limit. $50,000, they raised it to $125,000 for an individual.

to a couple, $250,000. house and senate, bipartisan basis, closed the legal hope -- lool hope, allows payments to be collected by multiple people on the farm. what we have to do is eight people can collect -- today is eight people can collect a $125,000 payment, leading to a $1 million subsidy for a farm. seven of those eight people never have to to put their food -- have to put their foot on the farm. it's called padding the payroll. quote-unquote, farmers, they don't have to undergo any incomes means testing to receive a subsidy. senator coburn, let's reduce the level of federal premium support for crop insurance participants, with an adjusted gross income of $750,000. the conference report, four people determine that they would make that cap at $900,000. again, the wealthiest people in the nation. let me just tell you about crop insurance. i don't know that the american public knows that the federal

government, you, mr. and mrs. taxpayer, you pick up 60% of the cost of that crop insurance. that doesn't include administrative fees. there are 26 individuals today who get at least $1 million in a premium subsidy. we can't find out who they are. they could very well be members of congress. because they are protected. 26 individuals, we have almost 50 million people who are on the food stamp program, 16 million of whom are children. and we want to tell them that -- and there is no fraud and abuse in this program, the way there is in the crop insurance program. and yet we want to take food out of the mouths of families and children in this nation. it's the wrong thing to do. this bill should be rejected. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: the question before the house is, should the house

now consider h.res. 465. this point of order, madam speaker, is a dilatory tactic. none of the provisions contained in the underlying measure meet the definition of an earmark under the rule. the chairman of the committee on the judiciary certified that h.r. 7 contains no congressional earmarks by including the following earmark statement in the report accompanying this bill, which was filed on january 23, 2014. quote, in accordance with clause 9 of rule 21 of the rules of the house of representatives, h.r. 7 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as fined in clause 9-e-9-f or 9-g of rule 21. the following was included in the joint explanatory statement for the farm bill. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 21 of the rules of the house of representatives, and rule 44 of

the standing rules of the senate, neither this conference report nor the accompanying joint statement of managers contains any congressional earmarks, congressionally directed spending limits, limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined in such rules. i also remind the gentleman that this conference agreement s a bipartisan and bicameral measure. nine of the 10 democrat conferees from the agriculture committee have signed the conference report. the conference report was made available to all members and the public yesterday in full compliance of the three-day availability rule. in order to allow a house to continue its scheduled business for the day, madam speaker, i urge members to vote yes on the question of consideration of the resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired.

the question is, will the house now consider the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative and, without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: house resolution 465 provides for closed rule, allowing for consideration of

h.r. 7, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. and provides for separate consideration of the conference report to accompany h.r. 2642, the federal agriculture reform and risk management act of 2013, under a standard conference report rule. madam speaker, since 1976, the hyde amendment, which prohibits the federal funding of abortions, has been included in relevant appropriations bills. each year it has been consistently renewed and supported by congressional majorities and presidents of both parties. an abortion advocacy group has suggested that prohinting public funds -- prohibiting public funds for abortions reduces abortion rates by roughly 50%. that means that half of the women who would have recognize had a publicly funded abortion end up carrying their babies to term. in 1993 the congressional budget office estimated that

the hyde amendment prevented as many as 675,000 abortions every single year. this means that millions of americans are alive today because of the hyde amendment. after 38 years it is time for this life-saving amendment to become permanent law. when barack obama was elected in 2008, a myriad of long established laws, including the hyde amendment, created a mostly uniform policy that federal programs did not pay for abortion or subsidize health plans that included coverage of abortion, with only narrow exceptions. unfortunately obamacare destroyed that longstanding policy. bypassing the hyde amendment restrictions and paving the way for publicly funded abortions. the president's heament care -- health care law authorized massive subsidies to assist millions of americans to

purchase private health plans that will cover abortion on demand. in other words, hard-earned taxpayer dollars are now being used to pay for elective abortions. this is simply unacceptable. h.r. 7 will codify the principles of the hyde amendment on a permanent government-wide basis, which means it will apply longstanding federal health programs, such as medicaid, s. chip and federal employees' health benefits, as well as the new programs created by obamacare. h.r. 7 prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions. it does so by, one, prohibiting all federal funding for abortion, prohibiting federal subsidies for a.c.a. health care plans that include coverage for abortion, prohibbletting the use of federal -- prohibiting the use of federal facilities for abortion and prohibiting federal employees from performing abortions. this bill applies to the federal funding of abortions except in cases of rape, incest

or when the life of the mother is in danger. this commonsense measure, which restores a longstanding, bipartisan agreement, protects the unborn and prevents taxpayers from being forced to fund thousands of abortions. for this -- these reasons, i urge my colleagues to vote for life by voting in favor of this rule and h.r. 7 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you very much, madam speaker. and i appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. and ask unanimous consent that i may attach extraneous materials to this part of my speech, since we only have 30 minutes on two pieces -- two legislative matters. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: thank you very much. madam speaker, at a time when millions are struggling to find work, the majority has decided that their top priority, one of

the first 10 bills of the session, is to continue the decades' long assault on a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose. before i go any further, let me be clear. this bill is a hoax. federal taxpayers are not spent on abortion. this has been true for more than three decades. and under the hyde amendment, the use of federal dollars to pay for abortions is flatly prohibited except in the cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. thus, despite what the majority may claim, h.r. 7 is not a solution to a problem, but a purely, thinly veiled attempt to chip away at obamacare and women's reproductive rights. another battle in the war against women. h.r. 7 is a reflection of a

majority out of touch with the american people and a struggling to understand the fundamental truths about reproductive health and we really mean struggle. the extreme legislation was originally sponsored by a man, originated from a subcommittee composed of 13 men, was passed out of judiciary committee with the votes of 21 republican men. this has been the problem for a long time. men in blue suits and red ties determining what women can and should do when it comes to their own health. one such republican man declared that, quote, a wife is to voluntarily submit to her husband, in a book that he recently wrote. another has declared, and this is a new one, this is not the one from the last election, quote, the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy is very low. in other words, madam speaker, the men who are making these decisions simply don't know what they're talking about.

meanwhile, a republican man on the judiciary committee recently said, today's legislation is good for reducing the unemployment numbers, because having new children brought into the world is not harmful to job creation, it very much promotes job creation for care and services and so on that need to be provided for a lot of people to raise children. unfortunately the hypocrisy of that statement is it comes from a majority that staunchly opposes increasing any funding for pre-k education or paid sick leave for working parents and the same majority is cutting nutritional benefits for the working poor under the farm bill that we will consider tomorrow. such a hypocritical and mean-spirited agenda reminds me of another quote from former congressman barney frank. who once famously said that the antichoice legislators, quote, believe that life begins at

conception but ends at birth. end quote. in other words, once it's born, they don't want to have anything to do with it. in looking at the majority's legislative priorities, it is almost impossible to disagree. madam speaker, a new poll shows that 64% of americans agree that decisions on abortion should be made by a woman and her doctor. the government should never have gotten into the business of being between a woman and her doctor or anyone else she wants to consult. only 24% say the government has a right and obligation to pass restrictions on abortion. perhaps that's why the majority's passing h.r. 7 on the same day as the state of the union, because we know it's not going anywhere. we know that the senate will not take this up and if by some strange set of events it should pass the senate, which it won't, the president would never sign it. but anyway, we bring it up on the same day as the state of the union, rushing it through congress to make some kind of point to some people somewhere

before they leave on a weekend retreat in making one rule to consider two drass lickity different bill -- two das particularly different bills, -- drastically different bills, even they we would have had enough time for two different bills here. a major piece of legislation that impacts all aspects of the economy, the farm bill. surely it deserves a full and open debate before its final passage. instead, the majority's proposing another closed and house rule-breaking process because we've not had time to read it and this will also be their 100th closed rule since taking control in 2011 and allowing just an hour of general debate for each bill and 15 minutes basically on the rule on our side of the house. if one wonders of the productivity of this congress, just look at the closed and legislative progress and you'll

quickly understand. madam speaker, with all the major issues facing our country, attacking women's health care shots just how extreme and extremely out of touch the washington republicans are, because the republicans at home don't feel that way. we should be passing legislation to create jobs, to grow our economy, to level the playing field for working women, not taking the country back which attacks women's rights. i urge my colleagues to vote no on too's rule and the underlying legislation, and i ask unanimous consent to insert the following background material in the record which you have given me and i thank you and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognize. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield five minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, you're recognized. mr. smith: i thank my good friend for yielding, and i want to thank virginia foxx for her extraordinary leadership on

behalf of the weakest and most vulnerable among us. madam speaker, because abortion dismembers, decapitates or chemically poisons an unborn child to death, americans have consistently demanned that public funds not pay for abortion. i would note paraphernalia parenthetically, a number, a death toll that equates with the entire population of england, that's how many died. madam speaker, a huge majority, well over 60%, according to the most polls, show that women an men in this country don't want to be complicit in abortion by subsidizing it. a december, 2009, poll found that 72% opposed allowing abortion to be paid for by public funds under health care reform. another poll asks, and i quote, if the choice were up to you,

would you want your own insurance policy to include abortion? 69% of women said no. madam speaker, this is because an ever growing number of people recognize that abortion isn't health care. it kills babies and it hurts women. we live in an age of ultrasound imaging. the ultimate window to the womb. and of a child who resides there. we are in the midst of a fetal health revolution, benign, life-affirming interventions designed to diagnosis, treat and cure the precious lives of these youngest patients. abortion is the an tit cisof health care. - anthesis of health care. the judiciary committee report notes that the hyde amendment has saved over a million children and the number is far

larger because one in four women who would have procured an abortion don't go through with it if public funding isn't available. madam speaker, h.r. 7 seeks to accomplish three goals. one, make the hyde amendment and other current abortion prohibitions permanent. two, ensure that the affordable care act faithfully conforms with the hyde amendment as promised by the president. and three, provide full disclosure, transparency and the permanent display of the extent to which any health care insurance plan on the exchange funds abortion. madam speaker, in the runup to the passage of the affordable care act, americans repeatly from assured by president obama himself, including in his speech to a joint session of congress in 2009, quote, under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion. on march 24, 2010, president

obama issued an executive order that said the affordable care act, an i quote, maintains current hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges. nothing could have been clearer. that's the ironclad. as far as my colleagues will recall, the hyde amendment is two principles. it not only prohibits direct funding for abortion, but also bans funding for insurance plans that include abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. we now know that the hyde amendment principles have not been extended to the newly created health insurance exchanges. h.r. 7 seeks to correct that. under the affordable care act, madam speaker, massive amounts of public funds in the form of tax credits are today paying

for and will soon pay for insurance plans that include elective abortions. that violates the hyde amendment and that violates the president's solemn promise. the new law is poised to give billions of dollars directly to insurance companies on behalf of people who purchase health insurance. the congressional budget office counts the cost of these so-called tax crezz under the a.c.a. is -- credits under the a.c.a. either direct funding which is to subsidize health insurance coverage and according to c.b.o., the a.c.a. premium assistance credits will cost the federal government years. lion over 10 absence repeal or reform of the law, taxpayers will then be forced to foot the bill for abortion. and again, overwhelming percentage of the people have consistently polled they don't

want to be complicit in the taking of human life. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, for the purpose of unanimous consent request, i yield to congressman kildee of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kildee: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record in support of extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million americans instead of this radical republican assault on women's health care rights. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, for the purpose of unanimous consent request, i yield to the gentlelady, ms. delauro of connecticut. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the lady is recognized. ms. delauro: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record in support of extening the unemployment insurance benefits for 1.6 million americans instead of

what is a radical republican assault, a continuous assault on women's health care rights. the speaker pro tempore: boy. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous to ent request, i yield congresswoman clark from massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. clarke: i ask unanimous consent to insert my name in the record in support of extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million americans instead of this radical republican assault on women's health care rights. the speaker pro tempore: boy. -- without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent, i yield to congresswoman tsongas of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. tsongas: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record in support of extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million americans instead of this radical republican assault on women's health care rights. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker,

for the purpose of unanimous consent request, i yield to congressman takano from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. takano: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record in support of extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million americans inis he of this radical republican -- instead of this radical republican assault on women health care rights. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent question, i yield to congresswoman lujan grisham of new mexico. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lujan grisham: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record in extending unemployment insurance to 1.6 million including 100,000 new mexican job seekers instead of this law.al

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will make a statement. a member asking to insert remarks may include a simple declaration of sentiment toward the question under debate, which shall not embellish the request with extended oratory. the congressman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record in support of extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million americans instead of this radical republican assault on women's health care rights, h.r. 7, is enumerated appropriately because it reflects the priorities of this congress. ms. foxx: madam speaker. mr. johnson: when it comes to the keystone pipeline or decreasing -- ms. foxx: madam speaker. mr. johnson: extending education. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will cease. ms. foxx: madam speaker, i'd

like to ask the chair to reiterate her statement made just a few minutes ago about the extent of the remarks that may be made. mr. johnson: i will -- i'll ield the balance of my time. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, for the purpose of unanimous consent request, i yield to congresswomannesty of connecticut. -- come woman esty of connecticut. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady from new york will be charged with the embellishment of the gentleman from georgia. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. esty: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record for extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million americans instead of this radical republican assault on women health care rights. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, i yield to congressman al green from

texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record in support of extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million americans ined stead of this radical republican assault on -- instead of this radical republican assault on women's health care rights. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, for the purpose of unanimous consent request, i yield to congresswoman lee from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lee: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record in support of extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million americans ined stead of this radical republican assault -- instead of this radical republican assault on women's health care rights. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, for the purpose of unanimous consent, i yield to congressman cicilline of rhode island. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record in support of extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million americans instead of this radical republican assault

on women's health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, for the purpose of unanimous consent, i yield to congresswoman sheila jackson lee of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record in support of extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million americans instead of this radical republican assault on women's health care rights. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, i yield to congressman van hollen of maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent for -- to insert my statement in the record for the support of extending unemployment insurance to 1.6 million americans insead of this radical republican assault on women's health care rights. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, for the purpose of unanimous consent request, i yield to congressman eliot engel of new

york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record in support of extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million americans. we really have to have compassion for people. people are starving. we need to help them. that's what congress needs to be about. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield for unanimous consent request to congressman alcee hastings of florida. mr. hastings: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record of supporting extending unemployment insurance to 1.6 million americans instead of this radical republican assault on women's health care rights. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of embellishment by the gentleman from new york will be charged against the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, well, madam speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr.

collins. the speaker pro tempore: you're recognized. mr. collins: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to the gentlelady from north carolina. you know, we stand in this hall and many times it's spoken of the history and the things that's been done and said that's echoed through time, the speaker, the president, others who have spoken here and today as we talk about there is an echo that should be coming forth -- spoken in the chamber that was spoken by this, our administration, our president who said one more misunderstanding i want to clear up. adding no federal dollars will e used to fund abortions and laws will remain in place. to me that still echos in this chamber and i rise today as the co-sponsor for the no taxpayer funding for abortion. and i rise in strong support of the bill and the underlying rule. i share the belief of many taxpayers that life is a gift worthy of our protection, not something to be snuffed out when deemed inconvenient or challenging. i rise in support of this bill on behalf of those who do not yet have a voice and yet to be

sons and daughters of this nation. for me this issue is very personal. we learned that our daughter, georgia jordan, had spina bifida. we were shocked -- we were shocked when people came to us when hearing of jordan's diagnosis and said we had a choice about whether to keep our child. we knew there was a plan and purpose for our life. we believed more strongly than ever today and we cannot manage life without jordan. i know my family is not alone. many folks have welcomed children in the midst of difficult circumstances. not because it was easy but because it was right. when we deny the humanity of the unborn, with he deny our own. we have a sake receipt responsibility to protect the lives of children. today the opportunity to affirm the responsibility by passing this bill. this bill helps ensure taxpayer dollars are directed to care that preserves and improves life, not a procedure that

guarantees death. on behalf of millions of americans who object to abortion on demand, i urge this body to prevent taxpayer dollars from funding such abortions and as one who stands here and has been said -- the speaker pro tempore: your time has expired. mr. collins: i would just say, life matters. and promises matter. and echoes of this chamber matter as well. especially when spoken by the president. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, madam speaker. as we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule and give the house a vote on a bill written by mr. van hollen and mr. levin to extend emergency unemployment benefits paid for with savings from the farm bill that it seems this house will pass today. to discuss his bill, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, the ranking member of the ways and means committee, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: you're recognized. mr. levin: let me express very personally why we're asking for a no on the previous question. unemployment insurance lifted 11 million people from poverty since 2008. it kept 2 1/2 million people from poverty in 2012. so, for so many people in this country today, there's a personalmental. -- personal emergency. since the end of this program, december 28, they're facing bills to pay, utility bills, house payment bills, rental bills, money for gas to keep looking for work.

these are hardworking americans who are facing the winds of poverty. one of them today is with me for the state of the union, josie from michigan. and she will tell you as others will today at a press conference, there is an emergency, there is an emergency for them. extending u.i. is a moral american imperative. a moral american imperative. it's also a national economic benefit. the speaker asked for an offset , we're proposing one. so let us today have the chance to bring to the floor a bill to extend unemployment insurance , 1.6 million americans growing 72,000 every week.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady reserve her time? the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from kansas, mr. huelskamp. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. huelskamp: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 7, the no taxpayer funding of abortion act. it is a good bill. an important bill. that takes critical steps to protect the lives of the innocent unborn and the conscience rights of millions of americans. before discussing the bill i think it's important to recall some important history that was discussed previously. on saturday, march 20, 2010, the president of the united states announced a so-called agreement on his affordable care act and in part because of this agreement, supposedly protecting americans' conscience rights, obamacare narrowly passed and was signed into law. mr. speaker, -- madam speaker,

the agreement, the so-called stupak agreement, was a charade. it did not protect our conscience rights, it did not stop the federal funding of abortion. in fact, it did the very opposite. hidden behind a veil of secrecy and accounting gimmicks and because of that charade we're here today. h.r. 7 is very simple. it does exactly what the administration hoped we would believe they would -- they were doing in the stupak agreement. and it answers the fundamental question. how do we protect the moral beliefs of a majority of americans on the wrenching issue of taking the lives of the innocent unborn? the answer is clear. we should not force people to pay for what they do not believe in. we should stop federal bureaucrats from using americans' hard-earned tax dollars to pay for abortion and we should allow americans to exercise their god-given right of conscience. the american people are opposed to using taxpayer dollars to pay for the taxing of innocent human life. we know this from the thousands of constituents who contact

each of our offices. we know this from the hundreds and thousands of americans who descended upon this capitol and state capitols across the nation in march for lives just last week. and we know this from the 90-plus lawsuits that have been filed by organizations on religious liberty grounds like little sisters of the poor. wheaten college, hobby lobby, the list goes on and on. and we know this in our hearts. it's simply wrong to force people to pay for abortion. it's a violation of their consciences. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, for the purpose of unanimous consent request, i yield to mr. horsford of nevada. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. horsford: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to the gentlelady for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record in support of extending unemployment insurance benefits for the 1.6 million americans

instead of this radical republican assault on women's health care rights in our great country. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the distinguished ing member of the committee on the budget, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank my friend. what we're seeing here is an abuse of process, madam speaker. we have one rule governing a bill, it's an assault on women's health care rights. combined with a rule, same rule, for a 900-page farm bill that was filed at 7:30 last night. now, i know a lot of people around here claim to be speed readers but we're supposed to have a vote on the farm bill on wednesday. some people may decide to vote for it. some people may decide to vote against it. but what we're asking, madam speaker, is that we should all agree that this house, republicans and democrats alike, should have a chance to vote on a bill that says we

will take the savings from cutting back on agriculture subsidies and use those savings to pay for an extension of emergency unemployment insurance for over 1.5 million americans. who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are out there looking for work every day in an economy where there's still three people looking for every one job. that's what we're asking for, madam speaker. with respect to defeating the previous question and letting us have a vote. now, the speaker has said repeatedly over the last couple of weeks that he'd be open to extending unemployment insurance if we find a way to pay for it. we got a way to pay for it. and mr. levin and i went to the rules committee and said, ok, let's let the whole house vote today after the farm bill passes, if it does pass on wednesday, and say, let's use those savings for this important purpose. they said no. they didn't want this house to have that right. so now each of us, republicans and democrats alike, will have the opportunity to vote to

decide whether this body can decide to spend the savings from cutting ag subsidies to help 1.5 million people in their districts and around the country who are struggling right now. and by the way, it doesn't just help those struggling families. the congressional budget office says it helps all of us. it helps the small businesses and measure chants in our community, because if those -- merchants in our community. because if those -- can i have an additional 30 seconds? ms. slaughter: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: i thank my friend. because if those struggling families can't pay the rent or the mortgage or go out and buy groceries, who does it hurt? it also hurts the local merchants and small businesses. so, madam speaker, for goodness sakes, if people want to vote against the idea of using the savings from cutting ag subsidies to help 1.3 million americans, go for it. if you want to vote no, but for goodness sakes, let the people's house have that vote.

let the people's house decide whether we want to help 1.3 million americans. i hope this should weigh heavily on the conscience of the house, madam speaker. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i remind my friends on the other side of the aisle and every american watching at home, that normal unemployment benefits remain in effect for all americans in need. what has expired is the additional emergency unemployment compensation that goes above and beyond the normal compensation. this emergency compensation wases put in place during the -- was put in place during the economic downturn and was always intended to be temporary. in fact, we have been told that the recession is over and has been over for a long time. republicans want to help create jobs and we call on the senate

to act on the bills we've sent them, that we will do just that. madam speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. roe: thank you, madam speaker. as an ob-gyn physician who's delivered close to 5,000 babies, i strongly support the sanctity of life and therefore h.r. 7. since 1976, congress has prevented taxpayer funding for abortion. unfortunately this door was reopened with the passage of the affordable care act. this misguided law has, in addition to causing incredible hample to our health care system, potentially put taxpayers on the hook for funding the termination of innocent life. that's why h.r. 7 is so important. it explicitly states that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortions. i'm that here today making a -- i'm not here today making a point. i'm here as a physician on this floor trying to save lives.

abortion is not a business our government should be involved in. as legislators, we carry the responsibility and privilege to protect those who do not have a voice. we must make our laws consistent with our science and ensure full legal protections to those who are waiting to be born. this starts with the legislation like h.r. 7. one of our government's core functions is to protect the most innocent among us. and i will do my best to ensure that government fulfills its dutyy. i will always fight for the right to life because it is my belief that we are unique creations of god who knows us and loves us even before we're born. i urge my colleagues to support this important rule and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: let me give myself just a half a second to say that, again, we hear how important it is until the child

is born. but if it's unemployment later, it's not going -- unemployed later it's not going to get to eat, as long as we have this majority. i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from connecticut. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. esty: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in opposition to the rule and to the underlying legislation. 41 years ago the supreme court recognized that women have the right to make their own decisions about their reproductive health. yet once again this house is choosing to senselessly attack women's rights. this bill would restrict a woman's right to make personal medical decisions by bullying small businesses to either drop comprehensive health coverage for their female employees, or lose tax credits. furthermore, it places restrictions on women using private funds to buy private insurance for their most personal medical decisions. this bill is nothing more than an unprecedented, mean-spirited attempt to shame women out of being in control of their own

health. we can and must do better. which is why i urge my colleagues to oppose this effort to restrict health care for women. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. it is you are the unfortunate that our colleagues -- it is unfortunate that our colleagues are doing all that they can to portray this bill as an attack on women's rights. it's not that at all. and appreciate all of my colleagues who spoke so eloquently on our side of the aisle about what this bill truly is. and now i yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunnelee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for two minutes. mr. numbly: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank -- mr. numbly: thank you, madam speaker. i want to rise in support of h.r. 7, no taxpayer funding for abortion act. that will make policies like the hyde amendment permanent

and governmentwide and would remove funding for insurance plans that include abortion in the affordable care act. just last week, we marked the 41st anniversary of the roe decision, and we memorialized the 56 million children whose lives have been sacrificed to that decision. now, i'm a proud defender of life. i represent a state that stands strongly for life. i understand that the very first inalienable right in our declaration of independence is the right to life. but i also acknowledge that there's wide disagreement on that subject throughout our nation and throughout this house, recognize there's wide debate on when life begins, but surely we can agree that there should be no taxpayer dollars used to fund abortion procedures. there should be no taxpayer

forced to pay for health care through obamacare that funds abortion against his or her will. and that's why i'm a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 7, and i urge my colleagues to support this rule and the final bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the lady from california is recognized for one minute. : thank you, madam speaker. i thank the -- ms. lee: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the lady for yielding. the hyde amendment, for low-income women, which should quite frankly repealed. and today republicans are asking us to go even further to create an unprecedented interference in the lives of women and their families by restricting coverage for women's health in private insurance plans. instead of working together to extend unemployment benefits for more than 1.4 unemployed

americans, here we are debating another dangerous and divisive attempt to strip away the rights of women. instead of creating economic opportunities and jobs, here you go again attacking women's health care. not to mention that this bill singles out an attack on low-income women in the district of columbia by permanently prohibiting the district from spending its own locally raised funds on abortions for low-income women. my goodness. you would not want us to restrict anything in your district where privately funded local funds are used. this is just another battle in the war on women. it has got to stop. we must stop these attacks on women's health. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognize. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i will say it again. we are not attacking women's health care with this rule and

this legislation. h.r. 7, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act, codifies many long-standing pro-life protections that have been passed under both republican and democrat-controlled congresses. the majority of taxpayers oppose federal funding for abortion, as demonstrated in poll after poll. a recent poll showed that 58% of respondents oppose or strongly oppose using any taxpayer dollars for abortions. during the obamacare debate, a 010 poll found that 76% of americans said that federal funds should never pay for an abortion or should pay only to save the life of the mother. showed , 2010, poll

that 67% of respondents oppose federal funding of abortions. an april, 2011, cnn poll showed that 61% of respondents opposed public funding for abortion. a november, 2009, washington poll showed 61% of respondents opposed government subsidies for health insurance that include abortion. a september, 2009, international commouncations research poll showed that -- communications research poll showed that 67% of respondents opposed any measure that would require people to pay for abortion coverage with their federal taxes. madam speaker, it is clear, the american people do not want the government spending their hard-earned tax dollars to destroy innocent human life. period.

like most taxpayers, employers also prefer plans that preclude abortion coverage. according to the insurance industry's trade association, quote, most insurers offer plans that include abortion coverage, but most employers choose not to offer it as part of their benefits package, end quote. even minority leader nancy pelosi has voted numerous times to prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion in the district of columbia. president obama voted against taxpayer funding of abortion in the district of columbia twice when he was in the senate, an since being elected president, he's -- and since being elected president, he's signed legislation into law that's -- that prohibits this funding. s you see taxpayer funding for

-- no taxpayer funding for abortion is bipartisan, bicameral and is supported by the american people. it's time to make this widely supported policy permanent across the federal government. therefore, i urge my colleagues to support this rule and h.r. 7 and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the lady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, madam speaker. to cite what the gentlelady from tennessee said, president obama and his administration as well as leader pelosi strongly oppose h.r. 7. but i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 7, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. despite the misleading title,

this bill is not about federal funding for abortions. it's about intervening in women's personal health care decision. 41 years ago, the supreme court confirmed in roe v. wade, the constitutional right for women to keep our decisions about our bodies to us and to our doctors. yet here we are four decades later confronted by another draconian bill that encroaches on that right. since 1976, the hyde amendment has prohibited the use of federal dollars for abortion. the affordable care act is compliant with the hyde amendment. the affordable care act is law. the bill before us is nothing more than a deceitful attempt to place further restrictions on women's access to health care services. unfortunately, these kind of baseless attacks on women's reproductive rights continue to be led by republican men. it is clear that the all-male republican members on the house judiciary committee who approved this bill would rather focus their time and the american taxpayer dollars on restricting a woman's right to make their own medical decision rather than confront our nation's most pressing problem.

you would think that republicans would realize we have a few more things to focus on that are higher priority than whether or not women can make their own health care decisions. these men do not reflect or represent the voices of women. i stand before you today to say no more. we should oppose h.r. 7. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, the author of h.r. 7, chris smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i thank the gentlelady for her extraordinary leadership. let me convey to my colleagues the fact that h.r. 7 seeks to make the hyde amendment and her current abortion prohibition permanent. members on both sides of the aisle voted to renew the pro-life riders for another

year. title 1 of h.r. 7 are those separate riders made permanent. that's all it is. secondly, it ensures that the affordable care act faithfully conforms to the hyde amendment, as promised by the president of the united states. and as the previous speaker just said, she believes it exports with the hyde amendment. it doesn't. it's made up of two parts. direct funding for abortion and no funds to any insurance policy, any coverage, any plan that includes abortion. it couldn't be simpler. it's right there in the hyde amendment. it's been there year in and year out. i would note i authored the ban the nding for abortions in federal employee health benefits plan. we mirrored the hyde amendment to ensure that every single insurance plan in the fehb does not include abortion except

incest, life of the mother. like the hyde amount. let me say to my colleagues, wed need transparency. there is a galing lack of transparency in -- galing lack of transparency in obamacare including whether or not a plan includes abortion. in my own state of new jersey, we tried and tried, hours upon hours, we finally found out of the 31 plans offered in the state, 14 plans subsidize abortion on demand. yet, none of the plans, not one makes this information available to the consumers shopping online. same goes, ditto for state after state. you can't find out. when you make those phone calls, you get conflicting feedback from the person on the other side who himself or herself don't even know either. every single obamacare plan in connecticut and rhode island includes borges on demand. every single one. -- abortion on demand. every single one.

we see that as the taking of human life. look at what abortion does to the unborn child. the baby is either dismembered, chemically poisoned, decapitated, the methods are horrific. and we live in a culture of denial that does not want to look at the method. injurious of ly women and let me say to my colleagues as well, you want to know what obamacare is doing. just look at our own plan. look at the d.c. health link, our health insurance. of the 112 plans that i and you, our staffs -- staff can obtained, 103 of those plans subsidize by federal dollars completely in violation of the hyde amendment and my amendment, frankly, only nine plans are pro-life.

103 of those plans that you and i can buy pay for abortion on demand. just look at the facts. you know, the rhetoric that is so attacking and -- of our side of the issue, i believe in talking about the issue and not attacking my friends and colleagues. and i do count so many of them as close personal friends. when it comes to this issue, we need to talk about victims. the mother who aborts -- and i work with a lot of women, they are in need of help and reconciliation. abortion is the abandonment of women and also it is the destruction of a child. obamacare has not lived up to its promise. h.r. 7 gets it to the point where it does so. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from massachusetts,

ms. clark. the speaker pro tempore: you're recognized for one minute. ms. clark: madam speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 7, which effectively bans insurance coverage for family planning an allows the government to step between a woman and her doctor, even when there are risks of serious medical complications. madam speaker, the women of america are watching. dictating women's personal health care decisions should not be on the table today. what should be on the table? how about the many policies that ensure the economic success of women such as pay equity, paid sick leave and raising the minimum wage? how about making sure that millions of american job seekers have the vital safety net that unemployment insurance provides and allows them to put food on the table? how about instead of dictating women's health care decisions,

we focus on making childcare and education more accessible and affordable? this bill does not move us forward. it moves us backwards and inserts the government into the most personal decisions a woman and family can make. . i urm my colleagues to vote against h.r. 7. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield a minute and a half to the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, who was not able to testify before those 12 men, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for a minute and a half. s. norton: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. i particularly appreciate the opportunity to speak since i was denied the courtesy of speaking on a bill that targets m