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 my own

district. madam speaker, the only thing worse than tarring thing the reproductive health of the nation's women is reaching beyond that to do even greater damage to the women of a local jurisdiction, to permanently keep the district of columbia from spending its own local funds on abortion services for poor women. as 1 states do, among them alaska, alabama, montana, hardly bastions of liberalism. mind you, such spending is already barred in the annual d.c. appropriation. imagine this,ips, strips the district of columbia of its very identity for urposes of abortion by deeming

the district of columbia to be part of the federal government. what an indignity. republicans capture the majority in the name of local control and devolving federal power to the states and localities today you turn your own principles on their heads. to snatch power from a local jurisdiction, we will insist that republicans practice what they preach. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: continues to reserve. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to give one minute to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. i rise in strong

opposition to the expensive and overreaching legislation. it endangers women's health and well-being and attempts to effectively ban working women's access to a legal medal procedure. with a budget passed, president delivering his state of the union tonight this body has an important opportunity, let's turn the page, start acting in a bipartisan manner to address the nation's real problems. we should be working together to create jobs, encourage economic growth, ensure steady and rising wages. instead this house majority's once again succumbed to their worst ideological impulses at the expense of women's health. once again for almost the 50th time now they are trying to undermine the affordable care act. the bill claims to end taxpayer funding for abortion. everyone in this room knows there is no taxpayer funding for abortion, per the hyde amendment which is enacted every year. what this bill does is prevents

millions of women working for small business from using their own private funds to purchase coverage for services from private insurance. it aims to end any private coverage of these services by private insurance companies. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. delauro: women cannot get the comprehensive coverage that they need in the insurance marketplace. it's the same old same old from this house republican majority. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. delauro: oppose this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: the passage of h.r. 7 will be welcomed news for the majority of americans who do not want their tax dollars paying for the grisly business of abortion. this bill, which is co-sponsored by 165 house members, and a quarter of the senate, will make existing policies like the hyde

amendment permanent and will rid obamacare of its massive expansion of public funding for abortion insurance plans. the president repeatedly assured americans that obamacare would maintain current hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extend those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges. that promise didn't pan out. like so many other promises he made. it now joins, if you like your plan you can keep it in president obama's panoply of broken promises. madam speaker, last week hundreds of thousands of americans came to washington, d.c., braved the cold and march for life. participants hailed from all 50 states, various religions, and all different walks of life. but the one thing they had in common was a shared dedication to protecting the unborn. the march for life gives a voice to the voiceless and sends a powerful message to representatives of the people assembled here in congress. it's heartening that so many

americans of different backgrounds are willing to take a stand for life. this is not a partisan issue, this is not a partisan bill. h.r. 7 reflects the bipartisan, bicameral agreement that our government should not be in the business of subsidizing abortions. this is not a radical idea, madam speaker, it's a commonsense proposal that codifies a long-standing practice. therefore i again urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and h.r. 7. 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 am delighted to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, the democrat leader, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i commend her for her long-standing and strong support and respect for women for their

judgment, for the size and timing of their families, for women, when women succeed, america succeeds and congresswoman, ranking member slaughter has been a great proponent of that. today the president will stand at the rostrum of the house and report on the state of the union. on a day when we should join him in laying out a vision of opportunity and optimism for our country, republicans are voting to limit women's health care decisions. they are hiding the provisions of this legislation by what they have described as long-standing tradition and accepted policy that there will be no federal funding for abortion. and indeed there isn't. it's spelled out every time we have a bill that addresses this in appropriation which they have stated very clearly and they have said in a bipartisan way we have supported. so why are we wasting time coming to the floor today to

take up something that, as they have conceded, is the accepted policy of the house, of the congress of the united states? why? we are doing it because they are using it as a front for legislation that is very harmful to reproductive health of women. very disrespectful of women's judgment. and again a waste of time on the floor of the house. a waste of time when instead we should have, instead of disrespecting women should be mindful of and address the needs of 1.5 and growing number of their ns who have lost unemployment insurance through no fault of their own. hardworking americans, played by the rules, worked hard. the work hard ethic is alive and well in america. but in this time and this economic time, some people have

lost their jobs through no fault of their own. over time we have always respected the system that we had, paid these benefits, but not now. but not now. so today instead of going down this path to nowhere, they know this legislation is going nowhere. that is to say, the underlying damage that they are doing to women's health in their legislation. it's going nowhere. instead, we should follow -- he defeat this rule, vote against the previous question, follow the lead of the distinguished ranking member slaughter on the committee, our distinguished ranking member van hollen of the budget committee, vote this rule down, enable us to bring up a bill that will use the savings from the subsidy cuts in the farm bill in order to pay for unemployment insurance benefits. i myself do not think they

should be paid for because it is an emergency and by and large they have had -- those emergencies have never had an offset. but if the republicans want an offset, here's an offset. one that is going to be voted into law tomorrow in the house of representatives. we can use it today to extend these benefits. why don't we use the time that we have to meet the needs of the american people, to honor their priorities, to make their future better, instead of dragging us, dragging us into the past. so i ask again our colleagues to vote against the bill in support so that we can take up a bill in support of extending unemployment insurance, from one point now, six million americans instead of this radical republican assault on women's health care rights. with that, madam speaker, 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 reserve. 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 texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: our leader is right. our message should be today to e able to help the chronically and unemployed individuals who have worked and are now in need of an extension of the unemployment benefits. instead, today as we pass h.r. 7 we will be making a blatant, a blatant attack on equal protection of the law. and that disappointments me, because i know my good friends believe in the constitution on the other side of the aisle. and the hyde amount, of which i had the privilege of serving with chairman hyde for a number years on the judiciary

committee, clearly is the law. but what this bill has done is gone even further. it has disenfranchised from their civil librts the people of the district of columbia and completely abolished -- liberties of the people of the district of columbia and completely abolished home rule to the extents of women's health. if it was a state the question would be whether or not it was appropriate under the 10th amendment an this incentivized small businesses for you have disqualified them from getting a tax incentive or a tax credit because they are not allowed to provide for their employee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: this bill should be butt to the side and pass legislation to ensure that the unemployed have unemployment insurance. that's what's right about america and we should do the right thing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady continues to reserve. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: madam speaker,

i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. brownley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. brownley: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in opposition today against the rule. i offered an amendment to h.r. 7 which was not made in order by the rules committee. in fact not a single amendment was made in order. the majority continues to tell us about their commitment to open debate and regular order, yet we continue to govern under closed rule. i am disappointed by the majority's broken promises. i am also opposed to the underlying bill which is an attack on women and an attack on their families. it limits a woman's actually protected right to choose. it denies affordable health care, particularly to low-income women. it disproportionately hurts individuals who are counting on federal assistance to get health care coverage for themselves and their families. instead of bringing up bills that undermine a woman's

constitutional right, why can't we just focus on legislation that creates jobs and helps struggling feasms? -- families? madam speaker, let us today, let us just put an end to these attacks on women's rights, indeed we can do that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. brownley: i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: reserves. the speaker pro tempore: towns to reserve. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i'm pleaded to yield one minute to the -- pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. holt: instead of taking up critical issues we are here today considering a radical bill that failed several years ago, it's been resurrected by the majority so that they can continue their war on women and their vendetta against the affordable care act. taste a deceptively named bill. it's not about unauthorized use of taxpayer dollars. the purpose of this legislation

is to make the federal government interfere with the woman's decision to use her private dollars for legal health services. it will restrict women's access to safe reproductive health, and because it would rule out standard insurance policies now available to women, it will leave even more women without health care coverage. so instead of taking up an ideological mean-spirited lost cause, let's turn our attention to helping women get comprehensive health care, excellent health care for them selves and their family. helping women get excellent affordable childcare, helping women get pay equity and fairness. vote no on this rule. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: madam speaker, could i inquire as to how much time is left on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina as four minutes remaining.

the gentlewoman from new york has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i have no more requests for time. so i can be prepared to close if my colleague is -- ms. foxx: if the gentlewoman from new york is prepared to close, i'll also be prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves her time. -- north carolina reserves her time. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, by rebuilding our middle class, there is an urgent need for congress to pass legislation that will help american people. so i urge my colleagues to reject today's rule so we can get down to work, i hope, on real solutions to the problems that face our nation. not waste more time with another attack on women's constitutionally protected reproductive rights.

madam speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i'll offer an amendment to the rule to give the house a vote on the 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 the house will pass today or tomorrow. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record, along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, the only thing i really need to say other than the absolute requirements here is that we have had a great demonstration in this rule debate on what's going on here. h.r. 7, written by men, discussed before a subcommittee the men, then voted on by main committee composed mostly

by men, was brought here today and yet with the exception of the manager of the bill, not a single woman on the other side came to speak on this bill. on our side, we had diversity. we had women, we had men getting up and talking about -- actually, complying with the constitution. and on the other side, we had once again men telling women what they are allowed to do. we are so far past that. we said, let's put all this behind us. we honestly, certainly in the house of representatives, the people's house, can't you understand the difference here in the people's house that the people represent the diversity of the faces of america and all to en over there who seem have devoted their life to --

for women to do what they expect them to do and pass laws that require that. i think it was the most telling debates that we have ever seen and i hope it will not go unnoticed by the american people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i'm going to say again, this bill is not an attack on women or an attack on women's rights. i think it is wonderful that we had so many men here today speaking on behalf of the unborn. life is the most fundamental of all rights, madam speaker. it's sacred and god given, but millions of babies have been

robbed of that right in this the freest country in the world. this is a tragedy beyond words and a betrayal of what we as a nation stand for. before liberty, equality, free speech, freedom of conscience and the per south of happiness and -- pursuit of happy and justice for all, there has to be life and yet for millions of aborted infants, many pain capable and many discriminated against because of gender or disability, life is exactly what they have been denied. an affront to life for some is an affront to life for every one of us. that is the message we want to get across today. one day we hope it will be

different. we hope that life will cease to be valued on a sliding scale. we hope the era of elected abortions, ushered in by an unelected core, would be closed and collectively deemed one of the darkest chapters in american history. but until that day it remains a solemn duty for all of us to stand up for life. regardless of the length of this journey, we will continue to speak for those who cannot, and we will continue to pray to the one who can change the heart of those in desperation and those in power who equally hold the lives of the innocent in their hands. madam speaker, the commonsense easure before us restores an

important, long-standing bipartisan agreement that protects the unborn and prevents taxpayers being forced to finance thousands of elective abortions. it reflects the will of the american people and is the product of what has historically been a bipartisan, bicameral consensus in congress. therefore, madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and h.r. 7. i yield back the balance of my time, and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: all time has expired. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise.

a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption f the resolution 465, if ordered and approval of the journal. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 222. and the nays are 194. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise.

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 224, the nays are 192. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to can he railroad is laid on the table -- to reconsider is laid n the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 260, the nays are 142. present is three. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i rise to request unanimous consent that the name of the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulsen, be removed as the co-sponsor of h.r. 1094. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on h.r. 7. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. blackburn: pursuant to house resolution 465, i call up

h.r. 7 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: before the clerk reports the title of the bill, i ask that everyone take their conversations off the floor. he house will be in order. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 7, a bill to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 465, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee precipitation 113-33, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read. he house will be in order. the bill shall be debatable one hour, equally divided among and controlled by the chair and

ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary, the committee on ways and means, and the committee on energy and commerce. the gentleman from vbling, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, the gentlewoman from kansas, ms. jenkins, the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, and the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, each will control 10 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker, i come to the floor today in strong support of h.r. 7, the no taxpayer funding for abortion and abortion insurance disclosure act. this legislation is written with the same simple principle that has been supported on a bipartisan basis for decades. no taxpayer dollars should be

spent on abortions and abortion coverage. h.r. 7 establishes a permanent government-wide prohibition on taxpayer subsidies for abortion. this bill is all the more necessary because of the president's health care law and its attack on this longstanding protection of taxpayer dollars. for example, the health care law's premium subsidies can be used to purchase coverage on exchanges that include coverage of abortion. the a.c.a. breaks with the tradition of the hyde amendment , which has ensured that federal dollars do not subsidize plans that cover abortion. the bill before us would simply codify the hyde amendment language so it applies across the federal government. consumers should also have the

right to know whether the plan they are selecting on an exchange includes abortion coverage. while the a.c.a. included some notification provisions, many of our constituents are simply unable to find out whether a plan is paying for abortion. in fact, this inability to find out whether exchange plans provide abortion coverage seems to extend to the secretary of health and human services. in october of last year, secretary sebelius committed in testimony before the energy and commerce committee to provide the congress and the american people a full list of exchange plans providing abortion coverage. she was asked again to provide this list in december. yet we are still waiting as the days tick by. we do not have this list.

the self-appointed most transparent administration in history is simply unwilling or unable to comply with this request. this is why we have provided the abortion full disclosure act. this would make sure that americans know whether the plans on the exchange are providing abortion coverage. this bill is about protecting taxpayer dollars and protecting life. it also ensures that we have at least some transparency under the president's health care law. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee reserves the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. capps: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. capps: madam speaker, i rise to speak in opposition to h.r. 7. house resolution 7 is not based

on fact. the affordable care act does not secret low funnel taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. and it is not based on the real experiences of american women and families. they want to make their own personal health care decisions in consultation with their doctor and their spiritual advisor, not their congressman. instead, this bill would squarely put the government, namely the i.r.s., in the exam room, by effectively raising the taxes of those who choose an insurance plan who happen to cover abortion services. that includes hardworking women, men and families and it would burden small businesses making each one second guess their current insurance plan. it would make them change their health insurance if they want to keep it affordable. simply put, h.r. 7 would dictate what individuals would do with their private dollars.

instead of this cynical attack on women's personal decisionmaking, we should be focusing on empowering our nation's families, the economy, strengthening the middle class, helping parents provide the best for their kids. it's really time to stop reverting to the culture of wars and and start trusting our nation's women, our nation's families and small businesses to make their own personal health care decisions. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield one minute to the gentlelady from minnesota, mrs. bachmann. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mrs. bachmann: thank you, madam speaker. we were told over and over again, if you like your health insurance plan you can keep it. we all found out that wasn't true. i will never forget on the day that obamacare passed, i was here in this chamber, we were

promised by the president of the united states that not only will the taxpayers of this country not be forced to pay for other people's abortions, we were also told that abortion would not be a part of obamacare. but we know today that isn't true. abortion is a part of obamacare, and what's worse, no matter how anyone feels about that issue, there's pretty strong agreement that no one should be forced to violate their conscience and pay for other people's abortions. it would be forced to do that. h.r. 7 makes president obama's promise stand up and ring true and it's this. that no taxpayer funded money ever goes to pay for someone else's abortion. couldn't we unite on this principle? this is important, and i yield back. mrs. blackburn: reserve my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. capps: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to my colleague from california, the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. waxman. mr. waxman: i thank you for yielding to me. existing law very clearly states no taxpayer's money can fund abortions. that's already the law, with the exception of rape, incest or disabled woman's life. so the republicans are coming and saying, we got to make sure that no taxpayer's money is going to be used for any insurance that might provide abortions. well, the law, the affordable care act provides that if you get an insurance policy in the exchange, you can choose a policy that does not provide abortion coverage. but if you choose a policy that has abortion coverage, that portion of the policy must be

paid by the purchaser, not the government. so this is all, like so much -- in fact, all we do around here is propaganda. it's politics. the republicans try to make people believe that their taxpayers' dollars are being used to pay for abortions. it's not true. this bill is bad in substance. it's an unfortunate bill that tries to interfere with the ability of people to buy their own money to purchase insurance policies that have abortion service with is a legal service. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. to the one minute gentlelady from north carolina,

mrs. ellmers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mrs. ellmers: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 7, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act of which i am a co-sponsor, a proud co-sponsor. i'm here today for those who cannot speak for themselves. the premise of this legislation is nothing new. it simply continues the long-standing prohibition of using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. regardless of whether you're pro-life or not, most americans recognize that it is unfair to force every american in this country to subsidize abortion. this is, however, exactly what obamacare does. it has allowed taxpayer subsidies for health care plans that cover elected abortions. h.r. 7 is much about protecting the taxpayer as it is about protecting the unborn. i urge my colleagues to make the fair choice and vote yes on this bill. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back the remainder of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. capps: thank you, madam speaker. i'm now pleased to yield a minute and a half to my colleague from new jersey, mr. pallone, who is the ranking member of the health subcommittee of energy and commerce. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in opposition to h.r. 7. this legislation does nothing but impede women's access to health care in this country and turns the clock back on reproductive rights for 38 years. their claim it will prevent taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. however, we know that does not except in the limited case of rape, incest or to save the mother's life. this does not codify the hyde amendment. that's bogus. what this bill does is prohibit millions of american families to buy health plans to include abortion coverage. madam speaker, attacking women's health shows how far

out of touch republicans are. instead of focusing on job creation, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather focus legislation that puts access to reproductive health care in danger and undermines a woman's right to choose. on december 28, unemployment insurance expired for americans still struggling to find work. meanwhile, democrats have a bill that would raise the minimum wage to $10.10, creating economic activity, growing the middle class. these should be the priorities of the house of representatives, not this phony bill before us. this legislation is an unprecedented, radical assault on women's health care. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. i yield one minute to mr. stutzman from indiana who has been such an advocate on our life issues. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute.

mr. stutzman: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her hard work on this very important issue. i'm humbled to join my pro-life colleagues here on the house floor and more importantly the millions of pro-life americans across the country. although this debate is often clouded by empty euphemisms like choice, we cannot forget the human element at the heart of this issue. this isn't about abstract concepts. this is about babies. the most vulnerable members of our society. at the same time we must show compassion and offer help to those struggling through what seems like an impossible circumstance and as civilized people we ought to prevent taxpayer dollars from subsidizing the senseless destruction of innocent lives once and for all. after all, we're a nation founded to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. madam speaker, today we have an opportunity to do exactly that with commonsense legislation. millions of pro-life americans don't want their tax dollars

used to subsidize abortions. i urge my colleagues to support the no taxpayer funding for abortion act and, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from tennessee reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. capps: madam speaker, i'm now very pleased to yield a minute and a half to my colleague from colorado, a real champion for women's issues, ms. degette, 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. degette: madam speaker, this so-called no taxpayer funding for abortion act has got to be the most deceptively named bill of this congress. here are the facts. there is no taxpayer funding for abortion. the affordable care act does not change that. let me say that again. there is no taxpayer funding for abortion. the affordable care act does not change that. the a.c.a. contains a

hard-fought compromise that guarantees that the tax credits made available through the exchanges are segregated out for plans that cover certain women's health benefits. this bill is an attempt to undo that compromise. it ineffectively bans coverage for important women's health services in the new health insurance exchanges. it restricts the way that women can use their own private dollars to purchase private insurance. it says small businesses cannot get tax credits if they choose to use their private dollars to purchase private insurance that covers important women's benefits. it goes far, far beyond the hyde amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding for most abortions in the annual appropriations bill. it also for the first time puts the hyde amendment into law. and it says women in the district of columbia will not have the same rights to access health services as other women

in the rest of the nation. it would also undermine a woman's right to make her own health care decisions under her insurance policy with her own money. vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from tennessee's recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. and at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. meadows: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague from tennessee for her leadership on this particular issue. and for far too long, madam speaker, i was silent on this particular issue. some 22 years ago i -- as we were expecting our first child and my wife was pregnant, i began to talk to her about this particular thing. there my son was kicking in his

mother's womb and as we started to see this, i realized very profoundly that not only was it life but that it responded. and my son was responding to my voice and my touch and as we saw that, i realized that i had been silent for far too long. for us to not say something today and to allow, regardless of where you are on this particular issue, to allow taxpayer dollars to be spent for many of us who find this just appalling that it is even legal today is something that we must stand together. and so for those who can't speak for themselves, i stand here today and urge my colleagues to support this particular legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. capps: thank you, madam speaker. and i'm pleased to yield to my colleague from illinois, ms.

schakowsky, 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. schakowsky: thank you. you know, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be absolutely obsessed with taking away a woman's right to make her own personal health decisions with her own money. today we could be extending unemployment benefits to 1.6 million americans. instead we're considering legislation that would discriminate against a woman's right with her own money to pick an insurance policy. we could be raising the minimum wage instead of effectively banning abortion coverage in the a.c.a. market, even though not a penny of federal dollars will go to do that. we could be passing the healthy families act to provide sick leave, paid sick leave instead of erecting more barriers to women's ability to protect

their health and, yes, including access to safe and legal abortions. we should be defeating this legislation for three reasons. first, because women and their doctors, and not politicians, should make their own health -- should be makinging the health care decisions -- making the health care decisions. secondly, because we should not be undermining actions to comprehensive insurance coverage of women's health, insurance paid by the insured woman, not the government. and, third, because we have more pressing priorities to address. it is time that we moved on to things that matter to the american people and not continue this relentless war on women's rights. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. in yielding myself just a moment, i think it's important to realize that over 60% of the american people agree with us

on this issue. and you can look at survey after survey. they do not want taxpayer funds used for abortion. joining us in this fight to make certain that we preserve taxpayer funds, mrs. roby, who is a member of the appropriations committee from alabama, i yield one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from alabama is recognized for one minute. mrs. roby: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank the gentlelady from tennessee for her leadership on this. i've been intrigued with the latest rhetoric in the so-called war on women. i'm intrigued because at some point antiabortion activists -- or excuse me, pro-abortion activists stopped using the word abortion. instead of using the a word, they used terms like women's health or reproductive rights. it's a clever word game designed to disguise the truth and build artificial support. after all, who would be against the health of a woman? who would oppose anyone's right to reproduce? but what about the baby's health? what about the unborn child's

right to live? they don't call it abortion anymore because people understand what abortion is. it's the take aing of a life -- it is the taking of a life. it is death where life once existed. it is cruel and tragic and there is no place in the federal budget for funding it. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from alabama yields back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. capps: i am now pleased, madam speaker, to yield a minute and a half to our colleague from florida, ms. castor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for one and one-half minutes. ms. castor: thank you, madam speaker, and thanks to my colleague for yielding time. madam speaker, here at the start of the new year, when americans are facing so many challenges in their lives, the republicans are taking us off on this cruel tangent. we should be debating how to boost wages across this country. how to better educate our children and how to ensure that everyone has a chance and an

opportunity to be successful in their lives and secure in their futures. but yet again, handful of mostly older, mostly male politicians here in washington, d.c., believe that the priority for us is to interfere in the personal lives of women. they want to intrude in the personal, private health care decisions of women and their families. they think they know best. but how can they? well, i trust women and their families to make their own decisions, not the politicians here in washington. republicans in congress should respect our right to privacy. politicians shouldn't be allowed to direct treatments and oversee diagnosis from washington, and they shouldn't unnecessarily restrict a woman's health insurance -- a woman's health insurance coverage and a comprehensive policy that she has paid for. this republican bill is an unprecedented radical assault on women's right to make her own -- a woman's right to make

her own health and health insurance decisions. it interferes between the relationship of a patient and doctor. thankfully this bill is not going anywhere after the vote today. but it does provide evidence of what republicans in the house believe is the top priority for america. is it jobs? no. is it boosting wages? no. is it improving our skies and higher ed? no. it's to interfere in the personal lives and health decisions of women across our country. vote no. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. capps: may i inquire how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california has one minute. and the gentlewoman from tennessee has two minutes. mrs. capps: i'm prepared to close. ut -- all right, i will.

madam speaker, h.r. 7 is not about taxpayer funding. it is about what women, families and small businesses can do with their own money. their own private dollars. and it is about keeping congress and the i.r.s. out of the doctor's office. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to start trusting america's women to make their own decisions. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back. the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. what an interesting debate we have. and what a difference we have in philosophies as we approach the work of this nation. i have found it really quite curious. as we have some who say we should be talking about how we

live better lives and jobs and futures. and you know what, madam speaker? we talk today, what our focus is on is making certain that these precious, unborn children do have that right to life. to liberty. to the pursuit of happiness. yes, indeed. and today let me just clear up the record for the legislation before us, where we talk about no taxpayer funding of abortion. i want to read from the legislation itself, madam speaker. section 304 in title 1. nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting any individual, entity or state or locality from purchasing separate abortion coverage or health benefits coverage that includes abortion, so long as such coverage is paid for

entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by federal law. reading directly from the bill, and then going to section 306. nothing in this chapter shall repeal, amend or have any effect on any other federal law, to the extent such law imposes any limitation on the use of funds for abortion or for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion beyond the limitations set forth in this chapter. so, madam speaker, may i lay the fears aside of my colleagues. this is an issue that 60% of the american people agree with us on. it is an action that they think is important to take. that it is important for taxpayers to have the assurance from their government that we are not going to have taxpayer funds used for abortion. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the entlewoman's time has expired. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: madam speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jenkins: madam speaker, i'm proud to stand before the house today in support of h.r. 7. the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. i supported this legislation last congress because the message i have consistently received from my constituents is that they do not want their taxpayer dollars funding .bortions, period

it's time to put this issue to rest once and for all. the majority of americans, regardless of where they stand on the larger issue, do not want their taxpayer dollars paying for abortions. but for too long we have had a patchwork of provisions when it comes to federal funding which has created potential loopholes and confusion. h.r. 7 solidifies the longstanding provisions of the hyde amendment which are especially needed when it comes to the affordable care act. madam speaker, i don't have time to stand here and list all of the problems with the president's health care law. but one of the these problems can be fixed through the passage of this bipartisan bill which simply states, taxpayer dollars will not pay for abortion. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from kansas reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized.

mr. crowley: i thank the speaker. when i go home to talk to my constituents back home in queens, and the portions of the bronx that i represent, there are a lot of issues that they bring up to me. they want to see unemployment insurance restored. they want to see jobs created and they want to see our economy strengthened. they want to see investments in infrastructure, in building our communities. but not once has anyone ever all you know, forget about that, forget that stuff, instead -- they've never said to me, please raise my taxes if uncle sam objects to the health care plan i pick for me, my family or my business. yes, that's exactly what this bill does. it raises taxes on individuals,

families and small businesses. i offered an amendment that would block this bill from taking effect if it would raise taxes. but the republican majority, with yet another closed rule, refused to make that amendment in order. why? because they knew that if that amendment were to become part of this bill, it would kill this bill. because no matter how you slice it, this republican bill will raise taxes on hardworking americans. small businesses will pay more taxes because if their employee health plan covers abortion or reproductive care, the business will be denied the small business tax credit. no one denies that. families will pay more in taxes when they lose any tax credits they received to purchase a

health insurance plan. if the plan that works best for them happens to include abortion coverage. that's right. families will have to give up on choosing their own plan. shipping these health care tax credits will have the same effect as if we deny they're stripped out, similar tax credit cans like the child tax credit or the higher education -- similar tax credits, like the child tax credit or the higher education tax credit. this bill interferes with personal choice and decisions. i find it ironic that my republican colleagues claim to support ensuring -- insuring americans can pick a private health -- ensuring americans can pick a private health plan, until the plan they pick covers legal services they find personally objectionable. and i find it ironic that my republican colleagues oppose every suggested tax increase

out there until it's one that advocates their social agenda. there's no question this is a serious issue and it deserves serious consideration. an issue as important as access to comprehensive health care coverage, and with such severe tax implications, it's outrageous that this bill was not first consider canned by the ways and means committee. -- considered by the ways and means committee. the reason for that is republicans are rushing this new bill forward. not because they are looking to make good policy. but because they're looking to make good political friends. good political friends who support a very narrow political agenda. i just wish the real issues that we need to be working on, like extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million americans, would get as much attention as all these made-up issues. and with that, madam speaker, i

reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: madam speaker, i would yield myself such time as i might consume. simply to note that according to the staff of the joint committee on taxation, the bill would have neglectble effects on tax revenues. similarly c.b.o. estimates -- you'll have the balance of your time, my time is limited. the c.b.o. estimates that any effects on direct spending would be neglectly simply and with that i would yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, the author of the ill, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i thank you for your eloquent remarks. the gentleman talked about a narrow agenda and narrow perspective. nearly 60% of every poll.

in the case of one poll, 69% of all women in the united states of america say they do not want their funds being used to subsidize abortion on demand. let me remind my colleagues that this legislation accomplishes three goals. one, makes the hyde amendment and other current abortion funding prohibitions permanent. we just re-authorized all of those riders just a few weeks ago. this just makes them permanent. ensures that the affordable care act safely conforms to the hyde amendment as promised by the president of the united states and provides full disclosure, transparency and display that is absolutely lacking right now to the extent to which any health insurance plan on the exchange funds abortion. mr. speaker, the president of the united states stood about 10 feet from where i'm standing right now back in december of 2009 and told the joint session of congress, and i quote, under

our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion. the executive order that was issued in march of 2010 said, and i quote, that the affordable care act maintains current hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges. madam speaker, that's simply not true. it is absolutely not true. as my colleagues know shes the hyde amendment has two -- know, the hyde amendment has two parts. it bans any insurance plan that includes abortion except in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. earlier speakers have said, not a penny will go to pay abortion. yet, under the affordable care act, massive amounts of public funds -- what are they if they're not public? they are in the form of tax edits, that's the word used,

$796 billion in direct spending over 10 years, according to c.b.o., will pay for insurance plans, many, perhaps most of which will include elective abortions, abortion on demand. madam speaker, that massively violates the hyde amendment. you can't have it both ways. you can't say you're for the hyde amendment and exporting the hyde amendment when you violate it in such a way. there are many states where pro-life individuals and constituents will have no opportunity to buy a plan that is pro-life on the exchanges. that includes connecticut and rhode island. every plan is abortion on demand. so their premium dollars, your tax dollars and mine will be combining to buy plans that provide for abortion on demand. you know, in 2014, madam speaker, we have learned so much about the magnificent life of an unborn child. increasingly, we've also

learned about the effects that abortion have on women. psychologically, the children born subsequently to them and, of course, to other aspects of their physical health. please support h.r. 7. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i ask the speaker how much time we have. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york has six men's, and the gentlewoman from kansas has -- minutes, and the gentlewoman from kansas has 5 1/2 minutes. mr. crowley: i yield to the gentleman from washington three minutes, mr. mcdermott. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, when you're not limited by the facts, you can say almost anything on this floor and we're hearing that today. because in the grand tradition of the anti-choice terminology, the title of this bill is an absolute farce. taxpayers do not currently fund

abortions. and this legislation would do nothing more than make it difficult for private businesses to provide adequate health care for their workers, restrict how our nation's capital conducts its affairs and generally block poor women from accessing safe and legal abortions. 1963 i was an intern in buffalo, new york. before the hyde amendment, before all the business, and abortions were illegal. and i stood there on the general medicine ward with two women, one with eight children, one with 12 children, who had gotten septic abortions, done in a back alley and they died. they left eight and 12 children in that situation. now, they did that because they

didn't have access to clean abortions. they'd made a choice, they can make a choice. if we say women can make a choice, that's simple. we'll just tell women what to do, which is really what this bill is all about. the republicans want to tell women what to do. stay out of our lives, get the government out of our lives? no. in every area except women's health. now, the truth of the matter is , not tax credits or health coverage, the heart of this debate is a simple question about, does women's health count? do women deserve comprehensive health care or are they some kind of submissive person who hangs around the house and we ell them what to do?

re their health care needs real? are they special exceptions who need to be taken care of because they can't decide for themselves? do they have a right to make health decisions for themselves? does congress have a right to stigmatize a safe, legal procedure? imagine if we were standing up here debating whether or not private business would be allowed to help employees get cancer or r prostate erectile dysfunction drugs or vasectomies? suppose we passed a law saying you can't pay for that stuff? imagine if we told men that they would lose their deserved tax credits in exchange if they purchased insurance that covered their health needs as they decide them? ask for an additional minute.

mr. crowley: i yield one minute. mr. mcdermott: women's health care is their health care. it is not congress to stigmatize legal medical procedures and punish women who use them. it's also congress' job not to tell washington, d.c. what to do or to stop people from having their options. this bill is insulting to women, and the republicans are asking for it in the next election. if anybody votes for you, it's because they haven't paid attention to what you're doing out here today. you're insulting every woman in this country, she can't make her own decision on her health care. i urge you to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: madam speaker, i would like to give two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, my colleague on ways and means committee, mr. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. kelly: i thank the gentlelady. madam speaker, this is appalling we are even at this

point and talking about this -- providing health care for women. i'm really -- i'm shocked. if we're not providing the best possible medical health for expecting mothers and their unborn child, that's not the issue. this country has always been the champion of life around the world, protecting human rights. we've always showed up at every single encounter when people were being treated in a way that we thought was not right. we rail about syria and the fact they're losing their citizens, assad is killing their citizens. since 1963 we have aborted 56 million unborn children, 56 million unborn children. and today we're having a discussion on h.r. 7, where the only thing the american taxpayers are saying, we know by law a woman can make that choice, but we also know that taxpayers don't want to fund it. it is appalling that we have to have this type of a discussion

in the united states of america when you know how we feel in our hearts and in our souls. you know how people feel about this. i want you to think about those 56 million unborn children who could have made a huge difference in this world. it is absolutely appalling to sit in this great room where many great debates over the protection of human rights and freedom and liberty and to be having this discussion. this has nothing to do with us cutting back on women's health care. it has to do taxpayers not wanting to fund an abortion. this is what we're talking about. please -- and as the gentleman just said -- it's about the next election. really? have we reduced ourselves to only winning elections and not winning on behalf of people's rights. these are human rights. i appreciate the time to come and speak. madam speaker, i tell you this is one of the most disturbing things we face in our country

today. i want people to know this, 56 million children have been aborted. if we can't wake up and smell the roses on this, then shame on us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. crowley: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lofgren: madam speaker, there is no tax money being used for abortions. that's been true since henry hyde served here with us. what this bill does is not address that issue. it really is intended to eliminate abortion coverage in private insurance plans. our witness professor wood testified in the judiciary committee that eliminating the tax benefits, essentially raising taxes if a small business offers a broad insurance plan that includes abortion will result in dropping that portion of the coverage. so this is really an extreme measure.

i understand that not everyone believes that women should make this choice. if you're opposed to abortion, don't have an abortion. but don't put the federal government in charge of the decisions that are properly and legally made by women, along with their husbands and families. this is an extreme agenda. it's wrong and i urge my colleagues to vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. franks: thank you, madam chair. madam chair, throughout history there has often been great intensity surrounding the debates over protecting the innocent lives of those who through no fault of their own find themselves obscured in the shadows of humanity. it encourages me greatly that in nearly of those cases it moved in favor of the victims. the same thing is beginning to happen in this debate relating

to innocent unborn children. no matter how the left has tried to obscure the true issue, we're finally beginning to ask ourselves the real question -- does abortion take the life of a child? and we are finally beginning to realize as a human family, madam speaker, that it does. ultrasound technology now demonstrates to all reasonable observers both the humanity of the victim and the inhumanity of what is being done to them and we are finally beginning to realize as americans that 56 million lost little lives and their bloodstaining the foundations of this nation is enough. and i yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: madam speaker, we're prepared to close if the gentlelady has any additional speakers before she closes, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york has 1 1/2 minutes. the gentlewoman from kansas has 2 1/2 minutes.

ms. jenkins: madam speaker, i don't see any additional speakers, so we will be prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman from new york prepared to close? mr. crowley: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. crowley: thank you, madam speaker. the gentlewoman from kansas is my good friend who i respect greatly said the overall tax effect is nenltable. i say negligible to -- negligible. i say negligible to whom? if you don't get a tax credit, it's not nenltible to you. it's very real -- negligible to you. it's very real. part of the trouble with this bill is not how much further it goes than current existing law but how much further this kind of thinking can go. one of the restrictions on medical procedures, as my friend from washington said, if your procedure involves stem cells, prenatal care for teen

mothers, could hospitals lose funding for training doctors in this certain procedure that this majority may deem troubling? the question is where does it end? how many other ways account majority use our laws to punish hardworking americans? can they take away your student loans because your teacher wants you to read "catcher in the rye"? can they limit your tax benefits for buying a house in the wrong neighborhood? vote no on this wrongheaded bill. and i yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, madam speaker. we are not interested in raising anyone's taxes. this bill does not do that. we are simply ensuring that hardworking americans who pay taxes and oppose abortion don't see their taxpayer dollars