touching briefly on the rule we like some parts, we don't like others. not too unusual for an epa outcome. the structural stability requirement's could be helpful and prevent a catastrophic spills we have seen. the monitoring requirements are a bit star, especially if the data is put online and you don't have to put online. i have to say it has big loopholes. boron is one of the most pervasive pollutants. it is important to understand no one is going to get wind burn from complying with the deadlines in the rule, some of which stretch from here to eternity. it is not a fast-paced set of standards. i encourage you to look at these deadlines. i would respectfully ask you

consider to actions. --t two actions. it's important to get an idea of the problem before a solution. here is what they said in 2009. we are confident each of the ash basins have structural integrity necessary to protect the environment. what the heck happened? how are you certain?

duke supported the bill. you might ask why they are not in indiana? i would hope you consider giving citizens affected by coal ash a chance to speak are at play without interpreters. you can hear what it has been like and ask what certainty they are looking for. i think you will hear there is a certainty they will be cleaned up some time in their lifetime. many of them have been waiting a long time. i think they would like the certainty. they would like the certainty the ash pond is not going to collapse on top of them and dump ash into the river. they can bring their own legal

action if the state doesn't do anything. i will say the citizens have worked on these issues for a long time. they deserve to be heard from. i hope you will give them that chance. >> we have gotten through the opening statements. last but not least the senior attorney. welcome, and you have five minutes. >> thank you. does that work? >> i think so. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here. my name is frank holloman, and i live in greenville, south carolina. we work with local citizens in the south concerned about their resources.

today i want to convey to you all this concerns -- the concerns of local people who want to see the communities prosper and local rivers protected. let's look at what we are facing in the southeast. the utilities have dug unlined pits and wetlands. -- in wetlands. they have put millions of tons of industrial waste containing toxins into the unlined pits and they have filled them with water. these millions of wet tons of waste are contained only by earthen dikes that leak. the toxic substances leach into the ground water. this situation is made worse because most of the pits are decades old, and their

infrastructure is writing. we have had to catastrophic failures from coal ash storage in the south. in tennessee and duke river in north carolina and virginia. one local water system is being forced to abandon public drinking water. fish have been killed and hundreds of thousands. property values have been affected and groundwater has been contaminated with substances like arsenic. my main point is congress should not take away the rights of local communities to protect themselves from this dangerous coal ash storage. congress should not leave the future of these people to

government bureaucracies alone. the citizens right to enforce a new epa rule is essential. what we have seen in the southeast is clear. the state agencies have not effectively enforce the law against these politically powerful entities. let me give you examples. in south carolina, where i spent virtually all my life, it has been clear for years that unlined coal ash storage violates anti-pollution laws yet no agency has taken action to enforce the clean up local organizations enforce the law with the result that all three utilities in our state are cleaning up every water filled riverfront coal ash lagoon they operate in the state. they are creating jobs, promoting recycling, and one of our utilities called these cleanups win-win for all concerned.

in north carolina nothing was happening to force duke energy to clean up its coal ash lagoon. local community organizations had to take the initiative to enforce clean water laws. for the first time north carolina was forced to take action and confirmed under oath that duke energy is violating state or federal clean water laws or both everywhere it stores coal ash in the state and under oath that this storage is a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. now a federal criminal grand jury is investigating, and as a result duke pledge to clean up its sites and to look at all the

rest. in tennessee they continue to store coal ash in unlined hits. local citizens groups and forced a clique -- and forced -- enfor ced a clean water act. the state has confirmed they have been violating tennessee environmental laws by coal ash storage on the cumberland river near nashville. in the south we have seen the people must have the power to protect themselves and enforce the law. the citizens right to enforce the new epa rule is a principal reason to have hope that this criteria will have a role in cleaning up a legacy of dangerous coal ash storage. >> thank you.

the first question for ms. johnson, how would your company make compliance decisions if the florida department of environmental protection sets requirements that are not exactly the same, even if they are more stringent than the final rule? >> it would be a challenge. we would have to comply with both sets of rules and what the requirements would be. if one was more stringent, we would look to comply with the stringent rule except we would know there would be a potential of having both regulatory regimes competing for our compliance, not to mention the fact i think that makes us vulnerable as the operator of a facility to third-party lawsuits that may question which one is the leading one. it would be challenging. >> because it is self implementing, the epa eliminated

much of the corrective action program as it exists. could you walk us through what flexibilities were eliminated and what that would mean for closure and corrective action? xterra few instances where the agency is contemplating a different approach to allow for a risk-based decision to establish a point of compliance, to establish a groundwater standard. to even engage in corrective action, the agency recognized the regulatory oversight wouldn't be there under a self implementing role. regulatory oversight to ensure risk-based decision-making is applied, and instead we are faced with the self implementing role. we take away a lot of the tools the regulatory agencies have in

prescribing cleanup. >> really explain this risk-based decision-making and how it might be incorporated into a state coal ash program. >> the state would take into account whether there was a receptor. if there is any risk to the environment, and they can take action about what types of measures must be implemented so. >> would the epa be able to implement a program? >> the rule is rather clear about what you have to achieve in corrective action. you must meet the standard. i would have to answer no. i could not see how that is the equivalent of the federal role.

>> is an experienced state regulator, i have spoken with your counterparts in other states. can you share your initial thoughts of the final rule and the implementation? >> we have a real issue with implementation, because we feel it would be due process. it would be confusing for the states. they have to decide if they want to open up the plan. if they do would that alleviate the dual regulatory regime? we don't think we will. >> have you testified about the six months required? some states might take 18 months to do the solid waste plan based upon the laws in the state about hearing said notifications? >> it's not just a simple fix. it's an implementation process

which is fine, but that will take extra time. >> your written testimony states the opening and approval of the solid waste management plan must be completed on an aggressive schedule indiana cannot meet. can you explain why that is and why you suspect that might be a problem other states might have as well? >> yes, other states may have the problem. some states might not have the right authority. some states the rules have to go through the legislature before they can go into effect. in my state i have to publish a notice with a 30 day comment period that i am going to do a rule. then i have to publish a notice in front of the environmental rules board for preliminary adoption and then one for final adoption, and then the attorney general stays to review it.

it takes 18 months. >> i thought we were bad. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> thank you, and welcome. unsafe disposal of coal ash pose a serious risk to human health and to the environment. there is ample proof current regulation is not working for many communities. in 2009 the subcommittee held a hearing on damage from coal ash disposal. we heard from victims who lost their homes, businesses and their health to coal ash contamination. problems have continued. hopefully the implementation of this rule will reduce the cost going forward. i would like to talk about what this case can teach us about compliance and enforcement. can you tell us a little about the reverse bill? >> yes. -- the reverse bill --i river

spill? >> yes. the basic cause is it is an old site. you have these old pits and somebody in the course of constructing that site had the bright idea of putting a storm water pipe under one of the coal ash lagoons. in the 1980's duke had received a safety report warning them about this problem about having a corrugated metal pipe under a coal ash lagoon, and in subsequent reports there were

constant references. be sure you check this pipe. be sure you watch what is coming out of the pipe. this old site built right on the bank of the river, right upstream from a drinking water source that pipe on super bowl sunday a year ago broke, finally gave way, and spewed coal ash and also 24 million gallons of coal ash polluted water into the river. subsequently they have done all they can do and removed a list than 10% of the ash from the river. once one of the stills occurs, they cannot clean it up. -- one of the stills -- spills occurs, they cannot clean it up. we were engaging in the process

of storing this waste in a lagoon filled with water with infrastructure. had that ash, as it is happening in south carolina today, had that been stored in the landfill like we require for simple municipal proxies -- office is it would have never occurred. these are engineered or not engineered to be as dangerous as possible. this is the smallest site in the state of north carolina. in some odd way we were fortunate. >> we have heard from other witnesses on your panel that states are best position to enforce coal ash disposal

requirements. do you think states have proven their ability to effectively enforce coal ash rules? >> the state never required a cleanup. in fact, six months before the still, -- spill, the state was forced to file a lawsuit. six months beforehand it stated in writing under oath that duke was violating federal and clean water laws, and if those were not corrected it was a serious threat to public health and welfare, and not one thing was done in six months to get the ash moved out. that is one illustration. >> do you agree with that assessment? >> i have similar experiences.

[inaudible] >> turn the microphone on. >> they felt they weren't getting the response from the state. we filed notice on their behalf. the state decided it brought an imminent and substantial endangerment, required its closure and a pretty aggressive cleanup. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> i'm going to yield my time to the gentleman from west virginia. >> thank you. all whole host of subjects with this panel. one of the issues has been the little blue run.

we had havens here. we had people who experienced that. this committee has done that. we maybe should continue to do that even more. they were here to testify about the situation. i thought it was a moving testimony. now the environmental integrity project -- is that yours? that's yours. you put out a report that calls in harm's way lack of regulations, and that was given to pennsylvania, because they are the ones primarily responsible. they did an exhaustive study because they want to respond. they came back and said, based

on the review of the information of this report for this particular facility, dep concludes the allegations are unfounded. i want us to be careful we can testify to these. there are adequate responses, and there are recourses for it. dep looked into it. i pursued this. we need to be careful. i have been in touch with pennsylvania about how they monitor, and west virginia as well. they have done what they said they are going to do, and that was to enforce the law. it appears to me from their reports they are trying to be good stewards of the

environment, and they are enforcing that. i am curious. we passed legislation that dealt with the existing and future impoundments addressing those issues. we included in that language about the siting restrictions in the language. did in your group opposed the bill? -- didn't your group opposed the bill? >> we certainly did. the restrictions we don't think are comparable. >> i raised these issues because if we don't pass the legislation we stay the way

we've been since the 60's. that doesn't work. that is what caused these issues. we are trying to find a solution. here was a bill. to defeat it as they did in the senate, that wasn't productive. i hope that people who have concerns work with us, because we have got to reach certainty. i heard all the testimony. we have got to find a way to close the doors of the people making the investment -- so the people making the investment know that tomorrow they will continue to operate. it's very important we passed legislation to close these loopholes, to solve some of these issues. i thank you for the testimony.

i hope you will continue to work with us as we perfect this, as we need to go further with this. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i will allow mr. shafer to respond. >> mr. kinley gets another five minutes. we're going to let you interject. >> i will be quick. it is useful to compare what pennsylvania said in its complaint in 2012 about the condition of that site and what they told epa the condition of the site is. it's really kind of different. you will see different types of statements. you will see them say the culprit opposes an immediate --

company poses an immediate danger. the enforcement action the state took came after the citizens filed a notice of their intent to sue the company for those violations, not before. it became after. pennsylvania, if they would like to tell you they are going to do it anyway, that's great. >> you have got 17 seconds left. we will allow him to respond. >> i am very familiar with this. we signed a decree. we had been looking at the site long before the suit was filed. that is the beauty of the system we have in place. we have air monitoring. we have all these factors in place that we are constantly looking out of facility.

we are constantly looking at the compliance. it is a moving target. at 1.1 thing. at another point it may be another. we have those points -- at one point one thing. at another point, it may be another. because of the issues we found they are actually closing the largest coal combustion impoundment in the united states in an environmentally safe manner. >> thank you very much. the chairman recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. are you done? inc. you. -- thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north dakota for five minutes. >> thank you. i want to get to one very specific point. to me it's obvious the patchwork, the inconsistency

potential, the uncertainty that would be created by self implementation and enforcement by courts, that's a problem. i would like to regulators to speak to the issue. if we were to tighten that up and put state msc in place -- primacy in place and codify the language with the epa, to the citizens of your states lose their ability to appeal -- to the citizens of your states lose the ability to appeal? we're talking about either citizens have rights or the bureaucracy has rights. we heard more from citizens in these hearings then we heard

from any other person. to me the local and state level you get more interaction and not less. if there is time left, i would welcome you to comment. >> as far as our members, we are in favor of minimum federal standards. the certainty is the key point missing from this. we don't think citizens will lose the ability to have a public forum or a further appeal. we feel that will continue. >> the thing that would help by having a federal law is there are a number of states where it is not allowed to have a more stringent regulation and the federal government, so to have this federal rule and to have a

law that says you must do this will help lots of those states will have a program implemented at the state level. we have people on the field for citizens to talk to. they have legislators out there. >> the same question. it is a concern to be what you raise. i want to ensure what you are doing would not negate citizens access. >> it's a great question but we are talking about two different things. citizens have the right under federal and state statutes to comment on, to be present at hearings, in determining whether a permit is put in place or what regulation is adopted. that's true. that's not what we're talking about. we're talking about once or

commissions put in place a permit or regulation and the utility violates it. after the public has input, they just violated. they don't comply. the state agency refuses to enforce the very laws through this comment period. you go through this process which is important. the very state government that put this in place refuses to enforce what the citizens participated in creating. in our state our public service commission which held hearings on this topic, one of the people expressed shock that duke had not removed -- from the site that was not with the permits and revelatory agency -- and regulations that would put

in place. >> the governors elected, the representatives are elected. these steps including enforcement being closer to the people is better for the people then removing it from the people. >> to people that have taken this enforcement action our local committee people going to their local state or local federal courthouse. these are people that live next door to me. these are people in the community. >> i don't see the principle violating that. >> as long as you all don't move or math with the citizens right to sue, we still have that right to sue. the citizens have the right to go forward. if you were to affect that, you are taking rights-of-way from other people and saying that

they don't belong. >> i want to assure people that there is no discussion neither in the last bill of elite getting or taking the citizens right to sue out. so, you can rest comfortably in that. votes have been called. we still have a member who wants to ask some questions. >> i will be brief. thanks for the panel. we have a different series of votes. if i can go down the line really quickly with a few of you. quite a good discussion here today. the temptation, the uncertainty that has to be done. how much input did you have with the epa when they were implementing the role? >> we sent in comments, we had a

number of discussions of what we would like to see and some of it is in, some of it is not. >> what percentage would that be ? >> we like that. we along with other people are disappointed at the weight is being implemented. cooks we share a very similar feeling. we were involved heavily with correspondence and comments. we do appreciate the implementation under the solid waste management which was our concern. >> switching gears really quick the question here is administrating. uncertainty under beneficiary use, miss johnson, in your

testimony, this is really located near you. do you think there are certainly out there right now? could there be changes in the future from the epa? >> i believe based on what the epa has stated, they clearly have the ability to revisit their determination on nonhazardous versus hazardous. that creates uncertainty. i will tell you in my experience that for the beneficial use committee, for our plant that provides a significant portion that uncertainty is a problem. a later designation or determination of hazardous is going to put that beneficial use process at risk. >> in terms of the effect of the market so far, it is too early to tell. we have heard many comments that people are happy that epa has

gone with subtitled the. it is troubling to have that language in the preamble that they may want to go back and revisit the double exemption. they said it in 93, they set it in the year 2000. they said the call lasted not warrant hazardous waste management. we need action by congress to put an end to that chain of events. >> how about you on the whole issue and beneficial use and certainty? what don't think it is certain when you say you say you're going to reopen it. the history has changed the maximum contaminant levels which is a hundred times that standard. suddenly make something that used to be non-habitus into hazardous. i think that can change at any point in the future and all have to assess that risk and what could happen to them.

>> i border indiana, i have about half way down. what is indiana's percentage of coal? >> is going down but it is still over 85%. >> used to be around 90% especially mine was around 73%. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> before i adjourned, i need to asking animus consent to accept a letter by the prairie river network located in champaign, illinois. and accompanying attachments from local communities. without objection, so ordered. we would look forward to working with u.s. and move forward and this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> leaders from around the world and politics, philanthropy and business are meeting in jobless, switzerland. francois hollande will address the conference tomorrow. he's expected to talk about the recent terror attacks in paris. he will have live coverage starting at 5:30 a.m. then secretary kerry addressing the forum. we will have live coverage of his remarks from davos at 10:40 eastern. >> here are a few of the comments we have recently received on the state of the union address. >> i'm very excited by the presidents state of the union address. i would like to hear him talk

about more about job security. now that unemployment has gone down. i would like to hear what policies are going to be in place to help people hold onto the jobs that they haven't people that are having a difficult time finding work. >> i was actually unimpressed. maybe i'm a little old school but to me universally paid, even committee college really takes away the initiative out of the student. maybe back in march era, we had to work through college, our parents didn't divide and we found a to get through college. for those that have nothing

potentially there be some help. but, i think you have to be cautious and judicious how we are throwing that money out, not just from a budget standpoint but what it does or doesn't do. >>'s the republican from iowa, she did make a comment about you don't need to under stand -- you don't to come from wealth and privilege to be an american. i wonder stan what it means to build from nothing, to come to something you can be proud of. we need to let go of old ways of thinking and embrace what we are is a country. we need to continue to salute our troops and sacrifices and embrace where our future is headed. i wanted to say that we still have so much ahead of us. history has proven that we can be judgmental of our leaders and history proved that differently.

i just hope in the next two years we can keep focus and hold tight to our values despite party lines, to continue to grow our country and future generations. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. >> house republicans dropped a bill banning abortions at 20 weeks. the debate next on c-span. then some of today's march for life rally in washington, d.c. later, nancy pelosi weighing in on the legislation.

here are some of today's houston abortion debate. -- house abortion debate. to the floor today in strong support of h.r. 7, the no taxpayer funding for abortion and abortion insurance full disclosure act. legislation that passed the house almost one year ago with bipartisan support. this bill affirms what a majority of americans believe, that 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. the bill before us would simply

codify the hyde amendment, a longstanding provision that has ensured federal dollars do not subsidize abortion over the past decade. h.r. 7 also requires that information regarding abortion coverage, as well as the amount of the abortion surcharge, be displayed where consumers can easily identify which plans cover abortion. consumers should have the right to know whether the plan they are selecting on an exchange includes abortion coverage. while the affordable care act included some notification provisions, many of our constituents are simply unable to find out whether a plan is paying for abortions. in fact, this inability to find out whether exchange plans provide abortion coverage seems to extend to the secretary of health and human services.

as former secretariesy billous failed to yull -- secretary sebelius failed to uphold her commitment after testifying twice before the energy and commerce committee, promising to provide the congress and the american people a full list of exchange plans providing abortion coverage. today over a year has passed and this commitment is still left unfulfilled. the self-appointed, quote, most transparent administration end quote, in history is simply unwilling or unable to comply with this request. in fact it took the government accountability office months to find out that taxpayer dollars went to pay for over 1,000 health insurance plans that included abortion. even though the affordable care act required through law that separate payments be made to

pay for the abortion surcharge, the g.a.o. also found that none of the insurers they interviewed actually collected a separate payment. in fact, the report reveals that the administration informed insurance issuers that they didn't need two separate payments. this bill is about protecting taxpayer dollars. and protecting life. it also ensures we have at least some transparency under the president's health care law. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fr pnsvaa reserves. the gentlewoman from colorad is gned. ms. degette: madam speaker, i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recoed. mst: madam speaker, i have good news for my friends on the other side of the aisle. there is no taxpayer funding for abortion. let me say that again.

there is no funding for taxpayer abortion. there hasn't been for many decades because of the hyde amendment. under the affordable care act that prohibition did not change. now, some of us might disagree with the hyde amendment, but that's the law of the land and it was a carefully constructed compromise under the affordable care act. this bill would be a vast expansion of the restriction of a woman's right to choose what type of insurance she can purchase with the consultation of her doctor and her husband. because it would prevent women from purchasinging insurance with their own money on the exchanges and that would be a restriction on their rights. so i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote no on this ill conceived piece of legislation and let's talk

about some things that really matter, like jobs child care and pay equity. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempor the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: madam speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady from kansas ms. jenkins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewom fm ns is recnid r e nu. . miss jeppingins: i rise today as a supporter and co-sponsor of h.r. 7, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. i was a co-sponsor of this legislation in the previous two congresses and i continue to support it after hearing from my constituents time and time again that they do not want their taxpayer dollars funding abortions. in fact, a majority of americans and the vast majority of kansans oppose their tax dollars used towards abortion. the specter of taxpayer funded abortion has been exacerbated by the president's health care law which offers subsidies to taxpayers in order to offset its

high cost. these subsidized plans brought through the health care exchanges could allow for taxpayer funded abortions to occur. without this crucial legislation, we will continue to have a patchwork of provisions regarding federal funding. this creates confusion, blocks transparency, and opens up additional loopholes. long-standing provisions are re-established under h.r. 7 which would apply uniformly across federal programs including the president's destructive health care law. i urge passage of this bipartisan bill. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's ti h eir. the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized. ms. degette: i'm pleased to yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request to ms. capps from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recogze cas: thank my colleague for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to have my statement inserted into the record of the house of representatives that we should be considering fair paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's

access to health care. i yield back. ms. degette: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: i'm pleased now to yield to the gentlelady from california, mrs. napolitano, for the purposes of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record of the house of representatives that we should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to all health care. i yield back the balance of my time. ms. degette: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. degette: i'm now pleased to yield to the gentlelady from new jersey, ms. watson coleman, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. ms. watson coleman: i thank the gentlelady for yielding to me. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to inserty statement in the record that the house should not -- should vote for bigger paychecks, should vote for better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

ms. degette: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado. .ette: i'm now pleased to yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request the gentlelady from california, ms. loretta sanchez. ms. sanchez: i thank the gentlewoman from colorado. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. degette: i'm pleased now, madam speaker, to yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez. mr. gutierrez: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking my daughter's access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. degette: madam speaker i now am pleased -- for purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from texas, mr. veasey. mr. veasey: madam speaker, i ask

unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's health care. thank you. ms. degette: madam speaker, i'm now pleased to yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. maloy: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should be voting on proposals that create jobs and accelerate economic growth. instead the only thing the republicans have accelerated around here is their attacks on a woman's constitutional rights and health care. the speaker pro tempore: the chair advises members that although a unanimous consent request to insert remarks in debate may comprise a simple declarative statement of the members' attitude toward the pending measure elbellishments beyond that standard constitute

debate and can become an imhe position on the time of the member who has yielded for that purpose. the chair will entertain as many requests to insert as may be necessary to accommodate members, but the chair also must ask members to cooperate by confining such remarks to the proper form. the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: thank madam speaker. i'm now pleased to yield to the democratic leader for purposes of national security council, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: gentlewoman is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house instead of attacking women's access to health care should be voting on bigger paychecks and better infrastructure for our country. i yield back. ms. degette: i now yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request the gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewomseiz. mslon: a unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record instead of attacking women's access to health care we should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. degette: mr. speaker, i'm now pleased to yield for purposes of a unanimous consent request the gentlelady from california, ms. waters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewomaisecnid. ms. waters: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of constantly attacking women's access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: with objectn. ms. degette: madam speaker i'm now pleased to yield for purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentlelady from california, miss spehr. -- ms. speier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's rgiaec ms. speier: i thank the gentlelady from colorado. i, too, ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that instead of attacking women's access to health care that this house should vote for bigger paychecks for women and better infrastructure for all. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. degette: i'm now pleased to yield for purposes of a

unanimous consent request the gentlelady from alabama, miss sule -- ms. sewell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. sewell: isk unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of constantly attacking women's access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. degette: i'm now pleased to yield for purposes of a unanimous consent request the gentleman from california, mr. huffman. the speaker pro tempore: the genem iregned mr. huma madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that this house should be voting for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of these relentless attacks on women's access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. degette: i'm now pleased to yield for purposes of a unanimous consent request the gentleman from california, the house caucus chairman, mr. becerra. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. becea: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record that this house should start to concentrate finally on

bigger paychecks for our people who are working and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to decent health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. degette: i'm now pleased to yield for purposes of a national security council to the gentleman from michigan -- for the purposes of a national security council the gentm from michanmr. kildee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ld: ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the house record that the house should vote for bigger paychecks and better track instead of yet another attack on women's access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. degette: i'm pleased to yield for purposes of a unanimous consent request, the gentleman from maryland mr. coupling. the the speaker pro tempo: e gelen ecnize mr. cummings: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. degette: i'm now pleased to yield for purposes of a unanimous consent request the gentlelady from texas, ms.

jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jacksoneei thank the gentlelady. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. degette: now, madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the ranking democrat on the judiciary committee mr. conyers, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fromicgan is gnedorhe minutes. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 7 the so-called no taxpayer funding for abortion act. today on the 4 nd anniversary -- 42nd anniversary of roe vs. wade, the majority is launching yet another attack on women's health and actually protected right to choose whether to carry

a pregnancy to term. most importantly, this bill will make it virtually impossible for a woman to obtain abortion services even when paid for with purely private, nonfederal funds. though it's novel tax penalty provisions through its -- through its novel tax penalty provisions, h.r. 7 departs radically from existing law taking away women's existing health care and placing their health and lives at risk. despite the claims of its sponsors, h.r. 7 does not codify current law and it is not about the regulation of federal funds. there's no federal funding of abortion due to the hyde amendment. and the affordable care act maintains that policy in law.

for more than 30 years, congress has prohibited federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother through provisions in like the hyde amendment and annual aappropriation bills. nothing in the affordable care act changes this. finally, h.r. 7 also err rad case the authority -- eradicates the authority of the district of columbia to make decisions about how appropriated funds are used for health care of the district's citizens. what is h.r. 7 really about? plain and simple it's an assault on women's health and freedom. it permanently blocks abortion coverage for low-income women civil servants, d.c. residents, and the military. no committee has considered this

legislation. text was not even available until last night when rules met in a so-called emergency meeting. but the only emergency is that the majority didn't have the votes to pass another mean-spirited, anti-choice bill so they are rushing to the floor with this bill in time for the anniversary of roe v. wade. isn't it time to stop playing politics with women's lives and start governing? accordingly, i urge my colleagues to oppose this egregious bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman omolad res the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: madam speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady from indiana, jackie walorski. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman omndna is coiz f o minute. mrs. walorski: i rise today

because i believe that all human life is worth protecting. each one is worth saving and deserves respect and protection. foreyears now proactive people have been forced to watch as their tax dollars subsidize abortion procedures they are morally opposed to. the no taxpayer funding for abortion legislation prohibits taxpayer funding of elective abortions, no matter where in the federal system these may occur. this principle is supported by a majority of americans. in fact, 56% of americans are opposed to taxpayer funding of abortions. later today, i'll join a half million people who believe that life is a gift at the annual march for life rally. the largest ongoing march in american history. we have a responsibility as the elected body, representing our constituents, to protect the most vulnerable among us and ensure that women facing unwanted pregnancies do not face judgment or condemnation, but have positive support structures and access to health care to

help them through their pregnancies. this bill is an important step in the right direction to protecting life. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewon omolado is ized. ms. degette: thank you very much, madam speaker. i would just ask my colleagues on the other side to please give me an example where federal taxpayer dollars have been used to pay for an abortion except for with the hyde amendment exception. and with that, i'm pleased to yield to the ranking democrat on the constitution subcommittee, mr. cohen, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for -- the gentleman from tennessee is recognized fo two mus. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the time. this bill is a second bill that's been brought the last few days to show the republican side's intent to repeal roe v.

wade. that's what they'd like to do. what's most important is to understand the theater that this bill has shown that the majority party has made this historic hallowed hall of congress into. today's the march for life. lots of pro-lifers here. they wanted to give them something. so they scheduled a bill when we could be legislating on jobs, on minimum wage, on infrastructure, they wanted to give them something, so they came with a bill called fetal pain to get around the viability requirements of the supreme court. their caucus found that bill too extreme to get the votes. even their caucus. now, the leadership wouldn't listen to the democrats in the rules committee and it wouldn't listen to the democrats on the floor. and they didn't have the good sense to realize it would make them look as they are antiwoman and out of step with reality. it took some women and maybe a few men, but mostly women in their caucus, to finally go,

no so they brought up a retread of a bill. that was a retread too but they brought up another one. a substitute bill. because they had to have something to give as a gift to the march for life pro-life cawculls. this is theater. this is -- caucus. this is theater. this is drama. that's what this has become. women's rights should not be theater, it shouldn't be drama. women's rights should be preserved. and if there's any question about them, it should go through regular process. go through committees. let the members know about the bill. not have 72 -- within 72 hours a bill brought to this floor. regular order has been destroyed because of theater and messaging. and that's what you're going to see for the next two years. the american people will be very disappointed in this congress because it's become the theater of the absurd. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fm nnlvias iz. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished chairman of the judiciary

committee the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman frorgin is zefor three minutes. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker however stark americans' differences of opinion can be on the matter of abortion, generally there has been long bipartisan agreement that federal taxpayer funds should not be used to destroy innocent life. the hyde amendment, named for its chief sponsor former house judiciary committee chairman henry hyde, has prohibited the federal funding of abortion since 1976. when it passed a house and senate that were composed overwhelmingly of democrat members. it has been renewed each appropriations cycle with few changes for over 37 years. supported by congresses controlled by both parties and presidents from both parties, it is probably the most bipartisan pro-life proposal sustained over a longer period of time than any other. it's time the hyde amendment was codified in the united

states code. h.r. 7, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act sponsored by representative chris smith of new jersey, would do just that. it would codify the two core principles of the hyde amendment throughout the operations of the federal government. namely, a ban on federal funding for abortions and a ban on the use of federal funds for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. as hundreds of thousands of people from across the country come to washington to express their love of unborn children at the annual march for life it is a marvelous time to reflect on what could be accomplished if the bill we consider today were enacted into law. during the time the hyde amendment has been in place, probably millions and millions of innocent children and their mothers have been spared the horrors of abortion. the congressional budget office has estimated that the hyde amendment has led to as many as 675,000 fewer abortions each

year. let that sink in for a few precious moments. the policy we will be discussinging today has likely given america the gift of millions more children and consequently millions more mothers and millions more fathers millions more lifetimes and trillions more loving gestures and other human gifts in all their diverse forms. what a stunningly wonderous legacy and the bill before us today would continue that legacy permanently. i encourage all my colleagues to support this vitally important legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemafr pnsvaa reserves. the gentlewoman from colora is cn. ms. dett i'm pleased now to yield to the distinguished ranking member of energy and commerce, mr. pallone of new jersey, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemafr n jsey rd r two minutes. mr. pallone: thank you madam speaker. today is a sad day for this institution. late last night when republicans failed to garner

the votes for one extreme antiwoman bill, they pulled the switch and turned to another extreme antiwoman bill. in this attempt to restrict women's access to abortion care is an unprecedented radical assault on women's health care. tens of thousands of women and their families will be harmed by this policy. the bill's sponsors claim that this bill simply codifies the hyde amendment. and that is inaccurate. this bill takes unprecedented steps far beyond the hyde amendment. this bill places restrictions on how women with private insurance can spend private dollars in purchasing health insurance. but the bill doesn't stop there. it also prohibits washington, d.c., from using its own medicaid funds to make health care coverage decisions. and the goal behind this bill is to effectively get rid of all comprehensive health care coverage in this country. antichoice republicans want to turn back the clock on women's rights. it's critical that we protect

the right of every woman to make her own personal and private health care decisions. women in consultation with their doctors should remain in control of these choices and not congress. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 7 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman fm lodo reserves. the gen fnnia is recognized. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey really the pro-life leader in the house of representatives for many years three minutes to mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvan- from newery is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: thank you so very much. madam speaker, on september 9 2009 president obama stood six feet from where i stand now, right a at that podium, and told lawmakers and the american public in a especially called joint session of congress on health care reform that, i quote, under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to

fund abortion. in the 11th hour ploy to garner pro-life congressional democrats, and they were convinced and they were deceived, needed for passage of the obamacare legislation, the president issued an executive order on march 24, 2010, and it said, and i quote in pertinent part, the act maintains current hyde amendment restrictions. governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges. that is absolutely i state to my friends, untrue. despite an appalling degree of nontransparency, we finally asked the general accountability office to look into it. they came back and said 1,036 obamacare exchange plans covered abortion on demand. it also found that separate billing of the abortion surcharge required by the act is not being enforced by the administration and the abortion funding premium and again in

2015, is being illegally rolled into the total plan cost. health care consumers are therefore unaware when they buy their health insurance whether or not they're paying for abortion on demand. if the hyde amendment had been applied to obamacare, the number of obamacare plans covering abortion on demand would be zero. at its core i believe my colleagues should know this by now, some don't, this side of the aisle, and some on that do, the hyde amendment is two indisputable parts. it prohibblets direct funding for abortion and funding for any insurance plan that includes abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. obamacare violates the hyde amendment by funding insurance plans that pay for abortion on demand. h.r. 7 seeks to accomplish three goals. make the hyde amendment and other current abortion funding prohibitions current, and that includes the d.c. righter

permanent. ensure that the affordable care act faithfully conforms with the hyde amendment as promised by the president of the united states. third, provides full disclosure, transparency and prominent display to the extent which any health insurance plan funds abortion on the exchanges. last january the house passed h.r. 7 by a vote of 227-188. it languished in the senate for a year, never took it up. this is the same bill. it's been through regular order. hearings have been held as well as markup. the american people madam speaker strongly oppose taxpayer funding for abortion. a poll that was just released yesterday found that 68% of all respondents oppose using taxpayer funding for abortion and a whopping 69% of women are against taxpayer funding for abortion and 71% of the millennials are against taxpayer funding. mr. pitts: i yield the gentleman one more minute.

mr. smith: i thank my friend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemaisecnid. mr. smith: we live in an age of ultrasound imaging. the ultimate window to the womb, and that precious child who resides there. we are in the midst of a fetal health care revolution, an explosion of benign interventions to diagnose, treat and cure the precious lives of these children. abortion is antithetical to that, it dismembers, chemically poisons, shots to the heart to stop the heart from beatinging. as you know and i know my friend from new york is next to speak, at testimony before your committee, the doctor said, and he's an abortionist, he said the baby can be in any position in the uterus, you just reach in with a clamp and grasp whatever you can. you pull out an arm, he went on to say you pull out, reach in again and again and you tear out the spine and intend -- sbess tins, heart and lungs. these are gruesome procedures. that's what abortion is all about. h.r. 7 will save lives.

there's no doubt about that. the hyde amendment, i remember when henry hyde was told that million -- maybe even more than a million children survived because of the hyde amendment. tears came down his face knowing that those kids are now in the world going to school, having their own families and playinging soccer and other -- doing other great things. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded that they should direct their comments to the chair. the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized. ms. degette: madam speaker, i'm now pleased to yield to the distinguished senior member of the judiciary committee, mr. nadler from new york, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: e gentlefromewk rec ee minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding madam speaker. i rise today in opposition to h.r. 7, the so-called no taxpayer funding for abortion act. the name of the bill is a lie. there is now no taxpayer funding for abortion. i wish there were. the right of a woman to decide whether or not to become

pregnant, to decide to continue her pregnancy or make the difficult decision to terminate her pregnancy is protected by the constitution. the supreme court has determined that neither congress nor a state may place an undue burden on that right. denial of medicaid or other government funding that would be available for other medical procedures should be considered an undue burden. but that is not the law, unfortunately. taxpayer funding of abortion is prohibited by the hyde amendment. this bill goes far beyond that. this bill for the first time ever denies tax deductions and credits for women who use their own money to pay for abortions or to purchase insurance t covsrtns in so dheli majorinc tor women fs. thisilfofime denieemedax deduction that is otherwise available for medical expenses. if the medical expense is for an abortion. this bill for the first time treats as taxable income any distribution from a flexible spending account or health savings account that is used to

pay for abortion expenses. this bill for the first time denies small employers the ability to use tax credits to help them to provide health coverage for their employees if that coverage includes abortion. the bill also denies income-eligible women the use of premium tax credits available under the affordable care act if the insurance coverage they select includes abortion coverage. in first opposing and then voting to repeal the affordable care act 50 times, my republican colleagues have complained that government should not mettle in the private insurance market or private health care choices but this legislation obviously is designed to do just that. it seems that many republicans believe in freedom, provide nod one uses that freedom in the way they do not approve. that is a strange understanding of freedom. even more stunning, this bill increases taxes on families, businesses and the self-employed if they spend their own money let me repeat that, their own money on abortion coverage of services. and this tax increase is being championed by republicans, all

of whom have taken a pledge not to raise taxes on individuals or businesses. the intent of the bill is clear. it is to end insurance coverage for abortions for all women, whether or not they are paying their insurance on exchange and even if they use their own money to purchase the insurance. my colleagues in the majority believe that if you like your insurance coverage, you should get to keep it, unless it is for choices that they don't like. then they have no qualms about taking your insurance coverage away. that is the intended and likely result of this bill. currently the vast majority of insurance policies cover abortion services. but insurance companies will respond to the tax penalties this bill imposes by dropping coverage for abortions from all of their plans. this will have a significant affect on all women, not just lower income women who have long felt the brunt of federal restrictions on their health care choices. . h.r. it is neither justifiable nor necessary to prevent federal funding of abortion. it is a frontal assault on the

liberty and dignity of all american women. it should be roundly rejected. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker proreth gen'ti h eir. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recogni mr. p: e hyde language does not apply to obamacare. there is not one sentence in here, in this 2700-page bill. read the bill. it applies to medicaid and annually appropriated programs. 10 seconds? quickly. mr. smith: again, one. things that people seem to forget here is that obamacare both authorizes and appropriates the money. so it's outside the purview of the h.h.s. appropriations bill. that's why this legislation is needed. mr. pitts: with that -- mr. smith: the president promised he would apply the hyde amendment but mr. pitts: i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemafr pnsvaa is c f ous mr. rothfus: i rise in sut of-h 7 the no taxpayer funding

for abortion and disclosure act. madam speaker we know from science that everyone's life begins at conception. the right to life is god given. and described in our declaration of independence as unalienable. that means something that cannot be taken away. i defend madam speaker, the right to life of everyone in this country and everyone in this chamber, even those opposed to this legislation. this bill helps promote a culture of life. it reflects the overwhelming opinion held by americans that taxpayer dollars should not be used to pay for abortion. it also holds president obama accountable for another one of his broken promises. when he assured us that his health care law would not allow taxpayer funds to be used for abortion. we know madam speaker, from a september 15, 2014 g.a.o. report on health insurance exchanges that tax dollars are paying for more than 1,000 obamacare plans

that cover elected abortions. this bill stops that. i ask unanimous consent that the g.a.o. report be added to the across-the-board -- congressional record. as hundreds of thousands march today on the anniversary of the roe v. wade decision, i urge my colleagues to join me in committing to defend the sanctity of life and vote yes on this bill. i thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentlewoman from colo is recognized. ms. degette: madam speaker, i'm now pleased to yield to the distinguished senior member of the judiciary committee, the gentlelady from texas ms. jackson lee, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for o minutes. ms.aconeei thank the gentlelady for her courage. i stand here today refusing to surrender on behalf of millions of women, of all economic backgrounds and racial ethnic and religious who rely upon the supreme court of the united states that under the ninth amendment has indicated that roe v. wade, the right to choose, is a viable and important law of

the land. how can we undermine the constitution and its premise and its articulation? so today very quickly let me say that i know there are millions who are here to disagree with me. i respect that disagreement. but i am saddened that we would take advantage of this day to misrepresent the law and pass a law that will do damage to millions of americans. this is the face of republican women who in essence decided that h.r. 36 was too extreme. even republican men said that they could not vote on a bill that caused or asked women to report a rape before they could be able to benefit from an abortion. how sad in the trauma of rape that you must require someone to go to the police department before they could get assistance. that bill was pulled. that extreme bill was pulled.

but in order not to leave us without dramatics, we come again to do what is hurting millions of women in texas, where they cannot even get health services because of the laws passed in texas that completely shuts down good health care clinics that deal in abortion and other women services for health care with this dastardly law by requiring those clinics to be within a certain mile of hospitals. never having any problem before. so now we come with another masquerade in h.r. 7 which prohibit federal funds for being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion, making permanent already existing federal policies, prohibiting the inclusion of abortion in any health care service funnished by federal or district of columbia health care. again, interfering with the women in the district of columbia. and prohibiting individuals from receiving refundable tax credits, individuals interfering with projects -- the

gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: this is a bad bill. i ask my colleagues to vote against it. it undermines the constitution and ninth amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlen omenylni iiz. mr. pis: madam speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to another pro-life champion from ohio, the principal sponsor of the partial-birth abortion ban steve chabot. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. chabot: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, a number of my colleagues from the o side of the aisle a little while ago came down and made the -- i believe ludicrous allegation that this bill is an attack, somehow an attack on women's health care and therefore we ought to be spending time on the infrastructure and a whole range of issues. you want to talk about an attack on women's health care, it's called obamacare. it's an attack on the health care of women and men and children in this country,

deductibles up. premiums up. the quality of health care down. and most of the folks who came down to the mike i can't say all, i think probably all of them if they were here, voted for obamacare and the american people are having to live with the results of that. now that's an attack on the health care of american women. this legislation simply says that there ought not to be taxpayer dollars going to pay for abortions in this country. that one person shouldn't have to pay for the abortion of another person whether it's on moral grounds conscience, their religion. you shouldn't make one person pay for another person's abortion. it's pretty simple. the american people overwhelmingly agree with that point of view. that's what this legislation is about. and it's through obamacare as well. the same thing, through assurance or otherwise you shouldn't force one person to pay for another person's abortion because they are opposed to it.

today happens to be a day that's important to me. it's the day i was born. it's my birthday. it also happens to be the date that the -- i would say infamous decision roe v. wade came down. my birthday's 5 this was 1973 that roe came down. on this day i can't help but think of those millions and millions and millions of americans who do not exist today because of that decision. this obviously is related to that, but it's mostly about the choice that a person has to make. if they make that choice, should somebody else have to pay for it? the law says no. i agree with the law. support this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemas measxped. the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized. ms. degette: i'm pleased to yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. chu, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized r onmi. ms. chu: once again women's

rights are being attacked on the floor of the house. a decision about health that should be made by a woman and her doctor is instead being made by politicians with an agenda. and despite their claims of acting for the sake of women's health this draconian bill will deny women access to medical care and drive out abortion coverage from private health plans once and for all. what would be the effect? women would be denied access to abortion especially low-income and minority women who are buying health insurance through the marketplace. for some they'll be sent back to the days before roe vs. wade when women desperate for help were driven to unlicensed doctors and unsanitary conditions, often suffering infections hemorrhages, and at times death. we should not be in the business of endangering women's health and safety. this is why yesterday i introduced the women's health protection act. it would prevent states from restricting access to abortion

if they cannot demonstrate an actual benefit to women's health. personal medical decisions belong solely to the people they impact and the medical professionals they trust. we must oppose this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady'ti h eir. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: madam speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from tennessee another pro-life spokesperson diane black. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewon om tss is rezefotwo minutes. mrs. black: madam speaker, today is a somber occasion. on the 42nd anniversary of the supreme court's tragic decision on roe v. wade, our hearts ache for the 56 million unborn lives that have been lost due to the shameful practice of abortion. today there is hope because we have an opportunity to make a difference by passing the no taxpayer funding for abortion act.

this commonsense, compassionate legislation will protect americans' conscience rights by assuring their hard earned tax dollars are not used to fund the destruction of human life. as a mother a grandmother, and a nurse for over 40 years, this measure is especially meaningful to me. during my years in the health care industry i saw the joy in the young parents' eyes when they met their newborn child for the very first time. i held the hands of breathing spouses and children as they said their final goodbyes to loved ones. and sadly i witnessed a young woman lose her life due to the effects of a botched abortion. these experiences informed my life that all my life that all life is a precious gift from god and i pray that in time that this truth will be reflected in our nation's laws.

until then, can't we at least do this much? i urge a yes vote on the no taxpayer funding for abortion and i thank the sponsor for his work on this deeply important legislation. i yield back the balance ti. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fropesyan re. the gentlewoman from coloro is recognized. ms. degette: i'm now pleased to yield to the gentlelady from florida ms. wasserman schultz, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in strong opposition to the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. the bill thoughtfully advertised as pro-family and supporting american families. if they actually care about defending the values of our nation and the well-being of american families, i ask my colleagues across the aisle to offer legislation that reflects the priorities of american families. instead of debating a bill that the republican leadership just threw on the calendar at the last minute because their original abortion bill was too extreme, even for them.

today we should be discussing ways to ensure every woman can put food on the table by raising the minimum wage like 29 states have done and passing equal pay for women. we should be discussing how to ensure that every person that dreams of a higher ecaon has access to it by working with president obama on his community college proposal. we should be discussing legislation to allow 43 million workers to take time off when they are sick and to make sure parents can take time off with their new baby. these are the family centered priorities that reflect our values of the nation. and certainly the challenges that my constituents in south florida sent me here to tackle. instead we are debating a bill with an underlying principle that has already been codified. our colleagues on the otr side of the aisle know that a regressive policy of banning taxpayer funding for abortion which only serves to punish our nation's poor and vulnerable women already exists. as the president said tuesday night, while we may not agree on choice, we can agree the best people to make these decisions for women are not politicians.

building in the zeal to -- it ties women's health options to her income. a strong majority of americans agree including 62% that identify as republicans that abortion is the wrong issue for congress to be spending its time on. i agree with them. when my colleagues are prepared to work on legislation that truly addresses the concerns of the american people, we stand ready to work with them. listen to your members who sounded the alarm bell on the original bill that was pulled off this floor and get your priorities straight. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from pelv is recognized. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i'm very pleased to yield one minute to our distinguished majority leader in this congress the gentleman from california mr. kevin mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognizedorne mi. . mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we are here today taking a step forward towards a simple goal.

to save innocent lives from abortion and make sure no woman ever has to make that decision to end the life of her child. we all know that this is more than just some debate or social disagreement. these are human beings we are talking about. this is about pregnant mothers facing hardship and tough choices. it's about a culture telling people that human p life is expendable. most importantly, this is about human beings. more than 56 million children since roe v. wade who have been denied a chance to live. we are here today for them to make sure every person has the most fundamental right of all, the right to life. today on the anniversary of roe v. wade and during the march for life the house will vote on a bill to stop all federal funding from being used to pay for abortion. . the american people shouldn't be forced to pay for abortions or abortion coverage with their tax dollars.

i urge my colleagues to stand with the hundreds of thousands of people out on the mall right now. by voting for this bill. stand up and commit to creating an america that values every life. especially the lives of the innocent who cannot stand up for themselves. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fm nnlvia reserves. the gentlewoman from colad is coiz. ms. degette: madam speaker, i'm now pleased to yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. murphy, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman omloda is cd for one minute. mr. murphy: thank you madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady from colorado, ms. degette, for yielding and for her advocacy and work on this issue. today on the anniversary of roe v. wade, which changed history for women in america by allowing them to control their own bodies, i rise against the effort to roll back these rights. though we've come a long way in the last 42 years some politicians want to undo this progress and restrict access to critical medical procedures women may need.

why have we been debating whether the government should seize control over a woman's health decision when the american people want us to work together to create good paying jobs, balance the budget and raise the minimum wage? instead this chamber is wasting time with a divisive argument about whether the government should jeopardize a woman's access to medically necessary procedures. politicians are not medical experts. and we should not deny a woman the ability to make her own decisions with those she trusts the most. i ask my colleagues to focus on the economy instead of spending time on bills that divide this house and this country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: madam speaker i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from missouri ann wagner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewomafr msoi cfor three minutes. mrs. wagner: i thank the gentleman for yielding a i thank him for his leadership on this very, very important

issue. madam speaker, i rise today in support of life. today is a very joyous and hopeful day on what is a very sad anniversary. today is the 42nd anniversary of the supreme court decision roe v. wade. hundreds of thousands of pro-life advocates from across the country meands from my own hometown of st. louis, missouri, will be on the mall as we march in honor of over 56 million precious angels we have lost over the last 42 years. madam speaker i believe in the sanctity of life. i believe that life begins at conception and that every life is a gift. there is an area where most americans agree and where elected officials should all come together and that is on the federal funding of abortion. the majority of americans do not want their hard-earned tax

dollars going to pay for abortions. and congress has consistently worked together other the years by attaching the hyde amendment to appropriations bills to prevent taxpayer funds from going towards abortions. that is why i am a proud -- i am proud to co-sponsor and support h.r. 7 the no taxpayer funding for abortion and abortion insurance full disclosure act. and there is no more appropriate day than today to consider such important legislation. the bill does exactly what the name implied. it permanently ensures that no taxpayer dollars go to pay for abortion or abortion coverage. this bill codifies the hyde amendment and also addresses taxpayer funding for abortions that unfortunately the hyde amendment does not cover. for example, obamacare

expressly allows funding for plans that include abortions through taxpayer subsidies. during the health care debate, the president assured the american people that no federal dollars would be used to fund abortions under obamacare. it was yet again another broken promise. however, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act not only prevents taxpayer fubbleding for abortion under -- funding for abortion under obamacare, but it also requires transparency to ensure the consumers are fully informed about which plans on the exchanges contain abortion coverage and surcharges. madam speaker throughout my life i have worked to draw attention to the pro-life movement, to change hearts and minds and to approach this issue with love and compassion. and i will continue to work throughout my time in congress

towards the day when abortion is not only illegal, but abortion is unthinkable. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized. ms. degette: madam speaker, i'm now pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from -- gentlelady from california, ms. speier, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman fm lirn i gnedorwo minutes. ms. speier: thank you madam speaker. thank you to the gentlelady from colorado. i want to first say to the other side of the aisle that i am grateful that some members of your caucus recognized that indeed extremism on this issue has got to come to an end. and that you took steps to roll back the ridiculous bill that you had intended to bring up today, but didn't have the votes for because they spoke up.

and i'm grateful to them. you know, in some respects you look around this room and you think, is this a chamber of congress or is this a doctor's office? we might as well have doctor equipment here because that's what you're doing. you're trying to become between a woman and her physician. there's a lot of hoopla today because this is the anniversary of roe v. wade and this is messaging bill, so we're here messaging. but row vs. wade was a decision by the -- roe vs. wade was a decision by the supreme court of the united states of america. and each of us, when we became members of this body this month, swore that we would uphold the constitution of the united states. but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spend hours and hours trying to somehow find ways to undo

constitutional decisions by the u.s. supreme court. so we're here again. having yet another debate. and we'll have yet another debate. when american women in this country are far more interested in equal pay for equal work for paid sick leave, for a child care tax credit that has some resemblance to what reality is in this country. but rather we will continue to act like doctors here, and i might add there even are some hypocrites on the other side of the aisle who have counsel their own girlfriends to have abortions. it's legal members. we have a right to maintain this legality and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania's recognized. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, another eloquent pro-life

force, mr. lamalfa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. lamalfa: thank you madam speaker. thank you to the gentleman for offering me this time here today. i'm glad to be a californian that's in favor today of h.r. 7. indeed we've heard some interesting debate on this today, where we're deflecting from the issue on things like higher pay or building more infrastructure, which we desperately need in california. and even entering the word child care in when we're talking about paying for abortions. interesting. then there's words like access. well, abortion has been certainly accessible for 42 years. millions of times. what we're talking about here, the central point is, are the taxpayers going to be compelled to pay for it? are the american people out there, 68% in the latest poll going to be compelled to pay for something? jefferson said, to compel a man

to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical. people that are pro-life as well as pro-choice might agree with the idea that abortion should be available on the pro-choice side, but many, many disagree. a super majority. this would override a veton these o us oth cape. the mb opele drewis. t ate' fdi m ota oli interpre o obamacare, which is one of those job-killing, noninfrastructure-building items that's hurting our economy in this country, for jobs in california we're being compelled whether you're a church or a religious charity, an employer or individual, to have to have included in their insurance plans these provisions. paying for abortions.

where's the freedom in that? wreals the -- where's the objection of that? where's the freedom of expression? i hear a lot from the other side of the aisle until recent years on our first amendment. this is a bureaucratic mandate with their opinion. largely done, quietly in the middle of the night, out of the public eye. now this is being put on californians. so we need this measure to send that message back, that californians should not be compelled to have to provide this in their coverage. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has exp. the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized. ms. degette: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemafr mhin reze for one minute. mr. kildee: thank you madam speaker. i thank my friend for yielding. you know, i feel compelled to point out, after listening to the debate and the hyperbole,

passionate thoughts of what a high priority this is for the republican leadership, to bring this bill to the floor such a high priority that they didn't think about it until late last night. didn't bring it to committee rushed it to the floor without having even thought of this legislation until late last night. such a high priority. we know, the american people know this is political theater . and listening to the debate, it's also quite revealing in listening to some of the comments made, that this is not about taxpayer funding for the health care choices that american women legally have and the constitution supports and that the supreme court collarified 42 years ago -- clarified 42 years ago. but it's about preventing women

from making that choice in the first place. that's a choice that ought to be made by women, by themselves, with consultation with their health care provider . and not by members of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: madam speaker might i inquire of the time remaining how many speakers are -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from colorado has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. pitts: i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fromnla rerv. the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized. ms. degette: madam speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentlelady from the district of columbia, congresswoman norton, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewomafrom the district of luia is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. norton: my thanks to the gentlelady from colorado. is there any way to make an ty

woman, anti-health -- anti-woman anti-health, anti-choice bill worse? sure, there is. add a provision that keeps a local jurisdiction, the district of columbia, from spending its own local funds on poor women exactly as 17 states of the union could to do. -- union do. how on earth could you do that in this country americans will ask laughably. by declaring the district of columbia government to be a virtual federal agency. this bill hurts millions of women across the country who have a constitutional right to make choices about their own health. it compounds that discrimination by violating the oldest american principle, local control over local funds. the senate has repeatedly rejected this bill and i expect them to have the good sense to

repeat that rejection. i thank the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, a new member mrs. walters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewanrocafoias recognized for two minutes. wallet wallet wallet madam speaker, i rise -- ms. walters: madam speaker, i rise today on the -- mrs. walters: madam speaker, i rise in support of this act. this vital bill establishes that no taxpayer funds be used for abortion, including plans that cover abortion under the president's health care law. these restrictions will save lives. according to the research by the institute, policies that cut taxpayer funds towards abortion will actually prevent 25% or more of the abortions that would otherwise take

place. . furthermore, recent polling has shown that americans are widely opposed to taxpayer funded abortions. 68% of the respondents oppose taxpayer funds for abortion. a cnn poll from last year shows that 56% of rerespondents oppose public funding for abortion. as a mother of four, i know personally how precious the gift of human life is and how important it is to honor that gift. as legislators, it is both our job and responsibility to protect the innocent lives of the unborn and to serve as a voice for those who do not yet have one. today, the u.s. house of representatives -- the u.s. house has an historic opportunity to put an end to taxpayer funds for abortion. thomas jefferson so wisely

penned, to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the probable gation of opinions in which he disbelieves and abhors is simple and tyrannical. madam speaker, i emphatically agree. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemafr pnsvaa res. the gentlewoman from colorado's recognized. ms. degette: madam speakeri' now pleased to yield to one of our distinguished new members the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. adams, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: t genewanronoh rona recognized for 1 1/2 minutes -- ms. degette: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: two minutes. ms. adams: absolutely outrageous, that's the attempt to appeal roe v. wade on the 42nd anniversary is, absolutely outrageous. a blatant attack on women and their families. their first attempt h.r. 36 failed because women of both parties spoke out to let our male republican colleagues know

they've gone too far. the women of this house know that a woman cannot call herself free who does not own or control her own body. we are free, madam speaker. here we go again. h.r. 7, another attempt to attack women's rights. it especially impacts women of color. not on my watch. women of the house, let's do it again. let's prevent this legislation from moving forward and let's vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlela yldsa. the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i might -- may consume. first of all, abortion is not health care. it's a brutal procedure that ends the lives of unborn children through suction

dismemberment decapitation or chemical poison. it's the most violent form of death known to mankind. as the former chair of feminist for life said, abortion breaks a mother's heart. she says they're always two victims in an abortion. one's the baby one's the mother. one's dead, one's wounded. madam speaker, this human rights abuse should not be paid for or encouraged by government taxpayer money. the women in silent no more awareness campaign, the women in operation outcry point out that abortion not only takes the lives of the unborn child, it wounds all the mothers. we should keep this in mind. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fm pennsyan

reserves. the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized. ms. degette: madam speaker, i'm now pleased to yield to the distinguished the gentlelady from new york mrs. maloney, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewon omeworis rogr two minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank my good friend diana for yielding to me. madam speaker despite the rhetoric we have heard from our republican colleagues about their commitment to focusing laser-like on what the american people care about most creating jobs and accelerating economic growth, the only thing that they have accelerated in this new congress is their attacks on a woman's constitutional rights.

in just their first seven days in office our republican colleagues have introduced six anti-choice boys and brought two of them to the floor for -- bills and brought them to the floor for debate. we have a bill that's not only an assault on women it is pure political posturing that is guaranteed to be vetoed. even if it makes it through the senate, the president has made that clear. so we need to focus on what the vast majority of the american people have asked us to do -- create greater economic opportunity for all americans. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from pennsylv is recognized. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i

yield myself such time as i may consume. the gentlelady said what the american people care about. well, a maris poll released said that 68% oppose taxpayer -- public funding for abortion. a january 2010 university poll showed 67% of the respondents oppose federal funding for abortions. a november, 2009, "washington post" poll showed 61% of the respondents oppose government subsidies for health insurance that includes abortion. a september, 2009, international communications research poll showed that 67% of respondents opposed a measure that would require people to pay for abortion coverage with their federal taxes. we know what the american people care about. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlemafr pnsvaa reserves. the gentlewoman from colodo recognized. ms. degette: madam speaker, if the gentleman has no further speakers, we're prepared to close. mr. pitts: we have one further speaker. we're prepared to close. you go ahead and we'll close. ms. degette: beside you? mr. pitts: no. ms. degette: thank you. thank you very much mr. speaker -- madam speaker. i just have to end what i started with. there is no federal taxpayer funding for abortion. there has not been for many decades. some people, like me, think this is an ill conceived public policy, but it's the -- ill-conceived public policy, but it's the law of the land. it's the law of the land as part of the appropriations bill and it was part of the compromised that was negotiated with the affordable care act. so we need to keep that in mind as we talk about what this legislation does.

what this legislation will do is it will take away the ability of women in the exchanges to buy comprehensive health care insurance with their own money. now, i heard many speakers on the other side of the aisle today talk about their deep concern about abortion and unwanted pregnancies. well, i will tell you something. if you want to reduce unwanted pregnancies, which all of us in this room do, what you need to do is give women quality health insurance with robust family planning and a full range of health care services. the gutmacher institute in a 2010 study showed happily teen pregnancy in this country was at the lowest rate in over 30 years and do you know why, two

reasons. number one, birth control for these teenagers and number two, comprehensive health insurance. and so this congress, which has passed over and over again restrictions are on birth control access, not just for teens but for all women, and restrictions on comprehensive family planning is actually passing legislation that is going to stop this decrease in unwanted teen pregnancies. it's an ill-conceived policy, it's a wrong-headed policy, and if we want to stop unwanted pregnancies the way to do it is to have comprehensive health insurance for all american women. now, the majority at the last minute pulled the bill with the egregious provisions on rape that would have required rape victims to affirmatively go to the police before they could -- they could raise the exception, but don't make any mistake

about it. this bill is just as egregious as that bill and the reason it is is because in an unprecedented move it stops american women and their families from being able to get comprehensive health insurance with their own money. what would happen is, it would open up a significant divide between the coverage that large employers would give to families and small employers and individuals. now, the other thing this does is it reopens the debate and the compromise that we had in the affordable care act. the compromise we made in that bill was that there would be no public funding for abortion under the affordable care act. it was negotiated, it was agreed upon and, as the other side admitted, the president issued an executive order saying he would enforce the

current law on that. and in fact, that's what happened. the act required two separate payments for women and their families who receive premium tax credits and choose coverage that includes abortion services. the act is clear in its language. no portion of premium tax credits may be used to pay for the portion of comprehensive health coverage that is purchased in the marketplaces that relates to abortion services. and the compromise was agreed upon by pro-life groups like the catholic health association and everybody else, and now this compromise is being thrown out the window. well, our opponents say there was a g.a.o. report last september that said that insurance companies were not segregating the funds. so they say that that means somehow federal dollars are used -- being used to pay for abortions. well, after that g.a.o. study

came out madam speaker, the h.h.s. promulgated a new rule clarifying the agreement under the affordable care act that the funds had to be segregated, and they promulgated this rule on wednesday, november 26. i would ask unanimous consent to insert that proposed rule into the record madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. degette: so this compromise is being honored by the administration. now early in this debate i asked my opponents to please give me one example where federal taxpayer dollars has been used to pay for abortions. i haven't heard that example and it's because it's not happening. this is a false issue that's being raised. so i would submit to everybody here, let's stop talking about this false issue just because there are a whole bunch of people in town who want us to

pass some legislation. let's talk about some real issues. we just received a statement of administration policy from the white house not surprisingly, the administration has said that president would veto this bill. the bill is likely dead on arrival in the senate, but even if it did pass, it would be vetoed. so i have a suggestion from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. let's take up some issues that women and families of america care about. let's take up the issue of how we're going to give women good jobs with comprehensive health insurance so they can make their own decisions along with their family and their doctor. let's talk about legislation that will allow women of america to get jobs that have equal pay for equal work to the men. let's talk about a bill that will give tax credits for families who have to struggle every month to pay for childcare for their little kids. let's talk about that and

finally, let's talk about parental leave which virtually every other country in the world has so that when families have loving children who they love so much and want to take care of they won't have to go back to work because their employer doesn't pay them for family leave. let's talk about that because, madam speaker that's what the women and families of america want us to talk about. i urge us to reject this legislation. i urge a no vote and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. pitts: thank you, madam speaker. again, on the so-called compromise, i offered the hyde language in the committee and we won in a bipartisan vote. chairman waxman recessed, changed the votes stripped it out brought it to the f