Protect Life Act

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 430 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

The question before the House is: Should the House now consider H. Res. 430? While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any points of order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature.

The Congressional Budget Office has stated that H.R. 358 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and would impose no cost on State, local, or tribal governments. Again, Madam Speaker, this waiver is prophylactic, and the motion of the gentlewoman is dilatory.

I would like to now yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I believe that we have the right to close; is that correct?

Then I will reserve my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I find it unbelievable that our colleagues across the aisle could make the comments that they are making today. H.R. 358 takes away no protections from women in this country. It takes away no rights of women. It is not extreme.

Seventy-seven percent of the people in this country are opposed to taxpayer funding for abortions. What H.R. 358 does is to say we are going to make it absolutely certain that we are not going to use taxpayer funding to pay for abortions, even under what has become known as ObamaCare. This bill does not go beyond the pale, as our colleagues have said. It is not outside the mainstream. It is our colleagues across the aisle who are outside the mainstream. They represent 23 percent of the people in this country who do want to see taxpayer funding for abortions. They are outside the mainstream.

And talk about dilatory, this whole point of order is dilatory. It is an effort on their part to simply bring up issues that are irrelevant. And in many cases, the points made are not true. They are

the ones who are wasting time. They say we should be dealing with the jobs bill.

Well, Madam Speaker, let me point out to our colleagues across the aisle that not one of them who spoke today, not one of them who gave 1- minutes on the jobs bill have cared to be cosponsors of the jobs bill. The jobs bill, which President Obama has been asking the Congress to pass, was defeated in the Senate.

It was introduced in the House by one Member, and he put on the bill, ``by request.'' That means it was a courtesy to the President. No other Member across the aisle has chosen to cosponsor that bill. If they are so eager to get that bill passed, you would think that they would become cosponsors of the bill.

We are doing a lot on our side of the aisle to create jobs. We are doing our best to reduce spending and to reduce rules and regulations, and that will create jobs in this country.

Additional spending by the Federal Government doesn't create jobs. We know that from the stimulus bill that was passed in 2009.

And for my colleagues across the aisle who say that this is a misogynist bill, nobody has ever fought more for the rights of women than I have. But 50 percent of the unborn babies that are being aborted are females. So the misogyny comes from those who promote the killing of unborn babies. That's where the misogyny comes in, Madam Speaker. It doesn't come in from our trying to protect taxpayers' money from being spent on killing unborn children.

Madam Speaker, in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 430 provides for a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Is it appropriate for our colleagues across the aisle to make comments about the bill when they're asking unanimous consent?

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).

I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am a little appalled at some of the comments that I have heard across the aisle, especially those that say talking about jobs is more important than talking about saving lives.

I don't believe there are many Americans who would agree with our colleagues who say that we in this country pride ourselves on saving lives at every opportunity, both humans, animals, any form of life, and I believe this is a worthy debate for us to be having today.

But, Madam Speaker, the Republican-led House has also been working hard to rein in out-of-control government spending and represent the majority of the American people who elected us, and we know that by reining in spending we could do something to help create jobs. So we are not a one-note party. We understand we can do both of those things.

The bill before us today is a continuing effort to steward the taxpayer money wisely, represent the majority

of Americans who believe taxpayer money should not be used to pay for elective abortions, and, thereby, protect innocent life.

Last year, as others have said, the liberal Democrats rammed through their overall health care legislation and refused to include standard pro-life protections that have had broad bipartisan support in the past.

The rule before us today provides for consideration of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, which prohibits taxpayer funding for elective abortions under ObamaCare and also prohibits the Federal Government from forcing private insurance companies to offer plans that cover elective abortions. It does not take away any rights of women.

In addition, the underlying bill ensures that taxpayer subsidies for purchasing health insurance plans on the ObamaCare exchanges are not used to pay for plans that cover elective abortions, and does not allow the Federal Government to administer health plans that cover elective abortions. This is consistent with the history in our country of not using taxpayer funding for elective abortions.

Finally, the bill provides for conscience protections for pro-life health providers and entities to ensure they are not discriminated against for their pro-life beliefs and practices.

This bill has gone through regular committee consideration and passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee on February 15 with bipartisan support. The need for this legislation is critical, as the Institute of Medicine recommended in July that what has come to be called ObamaCare should cover emergency contraception with no copay or deductible. Many pro-life conservatives are concerned that their recommendation is a slippery slope to, again, what has been known as ObamaCare mandating and covering elective abortions, because the law does not contain specific longstanding pro-life protections.

A Zogby poll last year found that 77 percent of Americans believe Federal taxpayer funds should never pay for abortion or should pay only to save the life of the mother, and it is unacceptable that the liberal Democrats ignored the will of the people last year in ramming through their government takeover of health care.

As you can see, Madam Speaker, the vast majority of Americans don't want their tax dollars paying for or promoting abortion.

This isn't part of a radical agenda, as some of our friends on the left like to say. This is part of a longstanding and growing social consensus. Americans do not want their tax dollars supporting the abortion industry or promoting this terrible practice.

In May this House passed H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. This legislation would codify many longstanding pro-life provisions and ensure that taxpayer money is not being used to perform abortions. H.R. 3 is now awaiting consideration in the Senate.

As a proud cosponsor of H.R. 3 and H.R. 358, I will not cease to fight to protect the lives of the unborn at every turn. Since 1973, approximately 52 million children's lives have been tragically aborted in the United States. Until we have a permanent prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion and protection for health care providers who cherish life, I will continue to offer and support efforts to protect taxpayers' families and children from the scourge of abortion.

The unborn are the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society, and their right to life must be protected.

Yesterday in the Rules Committee our friends across the aisle who spoke against this rule and bill said we're bringing up ``hot-button social issues as diversions from the important topic of jobs.''

I have two responses to them on that comment. The issue of life is not a hot-button social issue; it's at the very core of our values as a country. We go to extraordinary lengths to save not only human beings, but even animals, because we value life so much. However, there are many who do not hold the unborn in the same esteem, and that is tragic for more than 1 billion unborn babies every year.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule in favor of the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues across the aisle that they are entitled to form their own opinions, but they are not entitled to form their own facts which are in opposition to what is true.

Our colleagues across the aisle know that the Hyde amendment applies only to discretionary spending, has to be introduced every year into the appropriations bill, and has never applied to mandatory spending.

The Affordable Care Act is mandatory spending, and if the protection for life were in the Affordable Care Act, then why did President Obama issue his Executive order saying that he was clarifying the issue?

I will not yield.

I think it is very important that we get the facts out here again. Several of my colleagues have pointed those out.

The gentlewoman has time on her side and she will be able to make her points.

I now would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, our colleague across the aisle I think was not here earlier when we talked about the fact that the jobs bill, which he says has overwhelming support by the American people, was introduced by request and has not a single cosponsor. I'm curious as to why he is not a cosponsor if he thinks we should be bringing up that bill.

I would also like to point out again that this bill, this rule, is not a war on women. And if this is such a cruel act, I want to point out that this is a bipartisan bill, and that the support for not giving taxpayer funding for abortions has always been nonpartisan or bipartisan in this House.

This is not purely a Republican issue. I thank God every day for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are pro-life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague across the aisle that if we have a constitutional right for taxpayer funding of abortions, then we should have a right to taxpayer funding of guns. The Second Amendment allows us to keep and bear arms.

I now would like to yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished colleague from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

I am.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, our position on taxpayer funding for elective abortion is bipartisan, bicameral, and supported by the majority of the American people. We all know that.

I'd like to point out to my colleagues across the aisle when they keep saying we need to be talking about jobs, when the Democrats took control of the Congress in 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent. Between then and the time that Republicans regained control of the House this January, the unemployment rate rose to over 9 percent--6.9 million more Americans became unemployed during that period of time. I'd also like to point out to my colleague that the constitutional authority for H.R. 358 is in the Congressional Record. He knows it's required when the bill is introduced.

Madam Speaker, the American people are probably a little confused by listening to this debate because they hear two very conflicting stories. I would like to urge them to go to thomas.gov. H.R. 358 is only nine pages long. It's very simple to read. It's not like what they call the Affordable Care Act, which we had to get passed before we would know what was in it.

There is nothing more important, Madam Speaker, than protecting voiceless, unborn children and their families from the travesty of abortion. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to put aside all this rhetoric that has been spoken of in this debate today and vote for life by voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring as to the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his information.

Before I talk about the American Jobs Act, does the majority leader have an estimate from either CBO or any economist on how many jobs over the next 24 months might be created as a result of the passage of those bills, the bills to which you refer as the House Republican plan for America's job creators?

I thank the gentleman for that answer.

What I took from that answer is there is no estimate of jobs that might be created in the next 24 months. That's what I took from your answer.

In terms of not creating jobs but creating an environment, I agree with the gentleman that we need to create an environment for jobs, but I don't believe that I've seen any estimates that your agenda will create jobs. As a matter of fact, I've seen the opposite.

Mr. Bruce Bartlett, the former adviser to President Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, was quoted just a few days ago. I know the gentleman is smiling because he knows this quote:

``Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them,'' Mr. Bartlett said, not me. ``The GOP opposes additional government spending for jobs programs and, in fact, favors big cuts in spending that,'' Mr. Bartlett said, ``would be likely to lead to further layoffs at all levels of government.''

He goes on to say:

``Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration''--of course, we lost 8 million jobs, as the gentleman will recall, during that period of time--``and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today.''

He goes on to say: ``And the Republicans' oft-stated concern for the deficit makes tax cuts a hard sell. On August 29, the House majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, sent a memorandum to members of the House Republican Conference telling them to make the repeal of job- destroying regulations.''

This is Mr. Bartlett, former Reagan aide and former aide to George H.W. Bush, both Republican Presidents. Mr. Bartlett goes on to say: ``Evidence supporting Mr. Cantor's contention that deregulation would increase employment is very weak. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration.''

Mr. Reagan was quoted, we have a nice quote, I am sure you have seen it, that indicates that people ought to pay their fair share of taxes as well.

The President has offered the American Jobs Act. He has offered the American Jobs Act and economist after economist after economist says that it will create jobs. It will create jobs by creating an environment, by giving more money to small businesses, giving more money to consumers in their pocket.

I know your side has talked a lot about that and that as a result of both businesses having more money in their pocket and consumers having more money in their pocket, that that environment of which you speak will be created, and a number of people think that they will create significant numbers of jobs as a result.

As a matter of fact, the macroeconomic advisers projected the plan would add roughly 1.25 percentage points to GDP, to gross domestic product, and create 1.3 million jobs.

JPMorgan Chase estimated the plan would increase growth by almost 2 points and add 1.5 million jobs. Moody's Analytics forecast the package would add almost 2 million jobs, 1.9 million jobs, cutting the unemployment rate by a point and increase growth by 2 percentage growth points. Now, I know my friend may disagree with those figures, and may disagree with Mr. Bartlett's comment, I am sure you do.

My point is this, we don't have any bill on the floor that we have had over the last 9 months or that is projected, that is projected to increase jobs in the short term. The gentleman knows he and I agree on the trade bills. I think long term that's correct; but the American people, as President Obama observed, can't wait 14 months for the next election. They are struggling, in pain, and at risk today.

And the gentleman last week, or 2 weeks ago, in our colloquy said that there are a number of things, items in the jobs bill on which the gentleman agrees or his party agrees: bonus depreciation, incentives for veterans jobs training programs, infrastructure, small business tax cuts, unemployment insurance reform. The gentleman referenced those on the floor. Clearly there ought to be some areas where we can get agreement.

Yesterday, as the gentleman may have noted on the floor, in the debate I stated that we were debating a regulatory bill that would have no immediate effect on jobs. Your contention is it would depress jobs in the future if that rule were adopted, but I don't think there was any contention during the time of the debate that that would create jobs.

Having said that, I am wondering whether the gentleman has any intention of bringing either the President's jobs bill or a jobs bill that your side would offer, or a jobs bill that the President has offered, to the American people and to this Congress which would be open for amendment and change by your side and by our side in an effort to respond to the American people's great concern that we are not taking actions which are effectively growing jobs in this country.

I yield to my friend.

I knew you would be happy to receive it.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

First of all, let me say that the gentleman knows full well that the President's jobs bill does not include revenues. The President suggested in the short term--and we ought not to raise revenues, as a matter of fact. In the short term, what we need to do is put more money back into people's pockets.

The jobs bill, he did suggest ways to pay for that. And he suggested, as did Bowles-Simpson and Rivlin-Domenici, that that be paid for in the coming years so we do not dampen down the economy at the same time we are trying to stimulate the economy.

The gentleman says that the bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, didn't work, and his comment was that the economy is in bad shape. Yes, the economy is in bad shape. It started being in bad shape in 2007, as the gentleman knows, when we went into the deepest recession he and I have experienced in our lifetime. And it remained in place, and the year that this President took office, we lost 786,000 jobs that month. After we passed the Recovery Act, as the gentleman knows, I'm sure, we created 2 million jobs over the last 24 months. The fact of the matter is it worked. Unfortunately, almost no economist understood the depth to which the recession had taken us.

The gentleman didn't support the Recovery Act--I understand that--nor did his party. Perhaps those 2 million jobs would not have been created. In fact, there was another bill, of course--the gentleman hates history, I know--that was passed that created 22 million jobs that no Republican supported. So I tell you, my friend, that when we compare economic performance of policies, one has created a lot of jobs and one lost a lot of jobs in the last decade.

And I will tell my friend when he says that the American people don't support the jobs bill, in fact, I want to tell my friend The Washington Post-ABC news poll says 52 percent of Americans support the American Jobs Act, and 58 percent of Americans believe the American Jobs Act will improve the jobs situation, including in that number 52 percent of Independents. In a Gallup poll, Americans support Obama's plan to pay for the American Jobs Act, 70 percent of Americans support increasing taxes on some corporations by eliminating certain deductions. I think some of your Republicans have said the same thing. Sixty-six percent support increasing revenues on individuals earning at least $200,000. Now, again, the President did not suggest doing that now, as the gentleman knows, just as the commissions did not suggest doing that now.

But what I have said to the gentleman and what I believe to be the case, and he says the Ways and Means Committee had a hearing today, that hearing was not on a comprehensive jobs package. It was on an important issue, no doubt about that, but there has been no comprehensive effort to put together in the short term a bill which will bring jobs to Americans that they need now.

The President's bill, we believe, will do that. We understand that there may be opposition. We also understand that there may be change. But there has

been no vehicle brought to this floor since the President spoke over 2 weeks ago to allow this House to work its will. You may have the majority of votes on it, but let the American people see who wants to create jobs. The gentleman says we don't create jobs. He is exactly right in a certain sense; but in another sense, as he says, we create an environment in which jobs are created, in which the economy grows, and in which people feel comfortable.

One of the things I want to say to my friend that I hope he would be for, my own belief is that one of the things that will most raise confidence will be to have the select committee of 12 come to an agreement on cutting $4 trillion over the next 10 years so that we can get the fiscal house in America in order and to do so by a balanced approach with everything, all of our expenses and revenues, on the table. I would hope my friend would join me in urging the select committee to do that, because I frankly think that is the one thing we could do that will raise the most confidence--not only here at home among Americans, but around the world--in America's ability to address tough questions.

So I would urge my friend to, one, try to come to an agreement with his committee chairs to have a comprehensive jobs bill brought to the floor, whatever you think that jobs bill may be, and then allow us to offer amendments, have the House of Representatives work its will on that; and then, secondly, to join in urging the select committee to work on getting us back to where we were in 2001 with a projected surplus in this country.

Reclaiming my time, is there anything I said that you believe is factually inaccurate?

I yield to my friend.

I'll take that as a ``no.''

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen, I think, in that last discussion a very significant discussion between our two parties. Indeed, the Republicans did offer a budget bill which privatized Social Security. They call it a premium support program. It eliminated the guarantee that people would have access to affordable health insurance coverage.

We don't agree with that. The gentleman is absolutely correct. We've rejected that. I would suggest the voters have rejected it. But I will tell the gentleman that we also reject the notion that you can spend great sums of money, as we did in the last decade when your party was in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and not pay the bill. That's why we went from $5.6 trillion of projected surplus to a $10 trillion debt when this President took over.

I will tell the gentleman that paying for what we buy is the right thing to do for our children and grandchildren. And the way you pay for that is called taxes. And we're not for raising taxes. However, we are for paying our bills. And if we want to buy stuff, if we want to confront terrorists in Iraq--which I supported--and if we want to confront terrorists in Afghanistan--which I supported--and if we want to make sure that seniors have prescription drugs, we ought to pay for those, not pass those along to my grandchildren. And you don't have grandchildren yet, but at some point in time you may well have them. And I hope you do have grandchildren. It's a wonderful joy. But we're simply passing the expenses along to them.

As the gentleman knows, we're now collecting somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 percent of revenues, 3 percent below average for the last 40 years. But we continue to buy things. And we bought things at a greater rate in the decade that has just passed than we did in the 1990s. We increased spending at a greater rate. The gentleman knows that. That's not history; those are facts, maybe historical facts, but they're facts.

What I'm telling the gentleman is, with respect to a balanced approach--he then says, well, all that means is you want to raise taxes. No. What it means is I want to make sure that we put everything on the table that is giving us the challenge that we're seeing all over the world of balancing our budget, getting our expenditures in line with our revenues, and that we do so in a way that does not undermine America's national security, its economic well-being, and the welfare of our people. That's what we believe in, that's what we hope this select committee will do, and, yes, we believe that everything needs to be on the table.

If that is not consistent with what your view is, it is consistent with the views of every bipartisan group, the Big Three, if you will-- Pete Domenici, former Republican chairman of the Budget Committee in the United States Senate; Alice Rivlin, former CBO director; Erskine Bowles, former

chief of staff for the White House; Alan Simpson, former U.S. Republican Senator from Wyoming; and the Gang of Six that now has over 18 or 19 Republicans and 18 or 19 Democrats saying we need to do.

I hope we can join together to do that. I personally believe that is the most important effort that we could make in bringing confidence back to America and to the perception of America around the world.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session in observation of the Columbus Day holiday. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. The last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. on Friday.

On Tuesday, the House will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. Also on Tuesday, the House will complete action on H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, and take up the rule for the three free trade agreements and the Trade Adjustment Assistance bill; therefore, Members are advised that the 6:30 p.m. vote series will be longer than usual.

On Wednesday, the House will consider H.R. 3078, the United States- Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act; H.R. 3079, the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act; H.R. 3080, the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; and H.R. 2832, extending the Generalized System of Preferences, as amended by the Senate.

On Thursday, the House will consider H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, sponsored by Representative Joe Pitts. Then finally, on Friday, the House will consider H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, sponsored by Representative Dave McKinley of West Virginia.

The Boiler MACT bill, the three free trade agreements and Mr. McKinley's regulatory relief bill are all part of the House Republican plan for America's job creators.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman that I am very entertained by the nature of his question since, I guess, it starts from the fact that some might believe that Congress creates jobs. But I would say in general, Mr. Speaker, that what we need to be doing here is to create an environment where entrepreneurs and small businesses and investors can actually feel confident again to put capital at risk to create jobs.

I would say to the gentleman further that the administration, itself, has accepted the notion that the passage of the three free trade agreements will have the potential--there's no guarantee--but the potential of the creation of a quarter of a million jobs.

Again, there have been a lot of promises made in this town, Mr. Speaker, about how we're going to control the level of unemployment and make sure it doesn't go beyond certain points connected with the stimulus bill, but I think the American people have had just about enough of broken promises. So we are proceeding with a focus, a focus like a laser, on creating an environment for entrepreneurs and small businesses to create jobs without making promises, Mr. Speaker, that will then let people down. We're trying to regain the confidence of the people and put some sensible regulatory policy in place with a lower tax environment so we can see growth return to a badly needed macroeconomic environment.

I thank the gentleman for all that information.

I just say to the gentleman, in quoting Moody's Analytics, perhaps what he portrays as our way forward, Moody's chief economist was also the one that made the prediction of an unemployment rate that would not exceed 8 percent as a result of passage of the stimulus bill.

And it makes my point, Mr. Speaker, that the people in this country are tired of Washington making promises it doesn't keep. We're trying to abide

by the trust that the people put in us to try and deliver results.

And right now, as the gentleman correctly points out, the economy is in bad shape. We are trying to do all we can to not only put money in people's pockets, because if there were unlimited money, that would be fine. But what we are trying to do is to encourage investment. We're trying to encourage economic activity so we can see growth happen and occur and jobs created.

That's the way it's done in America, is that we need the private sector to take hold of a signal from Washington that we do believe in free enterprise, that we're not about this government dictating where activity must occur, where and who is deserving of government support.

I mean, this is the essence, I think, of our difference, Mr. Speaker. We're trying to set aside the divide, because clearly we don't agree with the President's approach thus far. We didn't agree with the stimulus approach, and I think the facts have borne out that we were right, that stimulus spending out of this government did not produce the results that the administration promised.

We believed then and we believe now the key to economic growth going forward is to increase the competence, is to bolster the entrepreneurial private sector in this country. It's about innovation. From innovation comes jobs, comes manufacturing; but we need to get Washington out of the way and out of the business of creating harm.

The gentleman, Mr. Speaker, quotes all kinds of people; but I can quote my constituents, as I am sure many of his go to him and say can you stop making it so difficult for us to create or run a business? We need to be a startup country again, Mr. Speaker, and we need to see that type of economic activity. That's what will bring on growth.

So what we have said is, no, the President's all-or-nothing approach is unacceptable. It has been rejected by the American people. They don't want the my-way-or-highway kind of conduct.

And what we see out there, Mr. Speaker, is some conduct on the part of the administration that is just not becoming and of a helpful mode. How is it helpful out there to aim at particular sectors of industry, to aim at business in general when we're wanting the businesses to create the jobs?

So what we have said is, no, we are not for voting on tax increases in this House, which is what the President's proposal is about. We're not for accepting his desire to make it more difficult for charities to be successful. That's what's in the President's plan. I'm sure the gentleman would not agree that we ought to limit deductions to charities, and that's what the President's bill does, something that's not very helpful in today's economy when people are so in need of help by charities.

So we said, fine, set aside those differences and let's look at where we can agree. So we said we'll bring the trade agreements to the floor. We've been asking for that, as has the gentleman. And I will say, Mr. Speaker, he has been a stalwart of trying to help get those bills through, and I appreciate that, as do many of the Members on both sides who support free and fair trade.

But I would say we also note the President's remarks in his speech to the joint session where he said he would support our efforts in regulatory relief so that we can make it easier. We can make it easier for people going into business in a sensible way. We continue to bring bills forward on that note every week. We brought two forward this week and, as I indicated earlier, will again next week.

We will also be bringing forward the 3 percent withholding bill at the end of October that the gentleman well knows is a big concern to not only, to not only the private sector, but also to institutions like public universities that have already come and approached me and said, you know what, if you don't do something to remove that requirement, we're going to end up having to pay more for our contracts to our vendors.

So we're bringing that bill to the floor. We also are having bills that will come out of the Financial Services Committee that echo what the President said in his speech to us, that echo the President's stated desire to want to help small businesses access financing. We've got to make sure that we're doing everything there so it's not so difficult. We also intend to bring forward measures towards helping small businesses take advantage of their expenses so they can expense the costs that they incur to grow their businesses and take advantage of that to see if we can grow.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman indicates we need to have hearings and we need to do things on the President's jobs bill. I think we've indicated, and again, the Ways and Means Committee had hearings related to unemployment insurance reform, something that the President indicated that he wanted to do.

So, Mr. Speaker, no, we're not going to bring up the President's bill in whole because we don't believe in raising taxes and in more stimulus spending, but we are going to take the parts that we can agree on. And we've taken that posture again and again. It's a reasoned approach when you have two sides that have disagreement to say we're going to focus on commonality and transcend those differences.

If I could just respond, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I need to correct the record about the gentleman's statement about my not appreciating history. Of course I appreciate history. It is just one's sometimes biased interpretation of that history that I take exception with.

Mr. Speaker, without getting into specifics, I think the gentleman and I do have a different view perhaps of history at times, not always.

I would say this, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman well knows that the President's jobs bill, as submitted by Mr. Larson, has been referred to many, many committees. There isn't one committee that's going to have a comprehensive hearing on the bill. So as I said before, we intend to take the areas that we can agree on to work together towards forging a solution so we could actually, as some would say, put a win on the board for the American people.

I would say also, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that there are no cosponsors on the bill that's been submitted as the President's jobs bill. There are no cosponsors. So if there is such support on the other side, I would guess we'll see a lot of people, a lot of Members signing up for that bill.

I would say, though, to the gentleman that the reason we don't believe that bill is helpful right now is because we don't believe that raising taxes is something you need to do to grow the economy. In fact, it's harmful to growing the economy.

And as far as the gentleman's admonition or statement about the joint select committee, again, if he says ``balanced approach,'' that's a nice way of saying we want to raise taxes. We don't want to raise taxes. As the gentleman knows, he and I have been at the process of trying to forge a solution. Both he and I do want to see outcome and success, because I don't feel that it is in any way helpful to anyone to see the joint select committee fail.

The committee is charged with coming up with commensurate savings in order to increase the Nation's credit limit, so that means we've got to get the cuts. But when the gentleman talks about ``big deal,'' I'm all for trying to fix the entitlements because we know that's the problem facing this country, that the disproportionate driver of the deficits is the entitlements.

We know how to fix them. In fact, our side is the only one that has proffered a wholesale formula to address reform that would last a generation. That's the kind of certainty that I think will help in terms of increasing investment and the appetite for risk in this country to help entrepreneurs grow. The gentleman, his party and the President have rejected our approach and have failed to offer a single formula that will fix the entitlement problem and instead want this so called ``balanced approach'' that will simply take money out of the private sector, out of the people who have earned it, the small business owners, to continue to fund Washington to let Washington spend money.

And we say if you are not willing and courageous enough to fix the problem, why should we go and make prospects for economic growth that much dimmer by raising taxes?

So, yes, I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I'm all for as much savings as we can actually accomplish and reform that we can complete, but, clearly, we have demonstrated there are a lot of differences.

So, instead, I would look to the joint select committee to do its work. And I have the full confidence in the appointees by our Speaker that we can see it do its work without a lot of hyperbole and fanfare so we can continue to focus on how we're going to get Americans back to work.

Just one final note, Mr. Speaker, we should just stop buying so much. That's my point.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the Protect Life Act amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to prohibit Federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services or any health plan that includes such service. It also imposes new restrictions on health insurance coverage for termination care and expands conscience protection laws, while limiting access to reproductive health services.

At a time when our Nation is facing great economic uncertainty and millions of Americans are in need of jobs, please, somebody tell me why we are here considering a bill that is a direct attack on a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose and that does not create one single job.

Let's be serious here. Republicans have yet to pass a jobs bill. Instead of getting down to the business of creating jobs, they're bringing to the House floor a deeply flawed and deeply divisive bill that will not pass the Senate and would be vetoed if it reached the President's desk. They know that. I know that. Everybody knows that.

The Protect Life Act is both unnecessary and clearly politically motivated. Republicans are resorting to their old bag of tricks and pulling the abortion card in order to distract from their clear lack of leadership. In April they rammed through H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, instead of focusing on efforts to pass a clean continuing resolution that would prevent a government shutdown.

As the deadline approaches for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction in Congress to approve a deficit reduction plan in excess of $1.5 trillion, Republicans have deemed it necessary to rehash the health care reform debate and roll back women's rights.

And I want to clear up one thing. You keep saying ``ObamaCare.'' I've said repeatedly that there are those of us, and I am among them, that advocated for health care, including a public option and universal health care long before we even knew Barack Obama's name. So perhaps it should be called ``Hastings-ObamaCare.''

This time, however, they take it to a new harmful extreme. The Protect Life Act is not about the regulation of Federal funds with regard to abortion services. The Hyde amendment already does that. This act is about restricting access to care and intimidating women and their families in the use of their own money.

Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has prohibited the use of taxpayer money for funding abortions, unless the abortion is performed in the case of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother. The Affordable Care Act is no exception.

Regardless of the facts, however, House Republicans continue their assault on a woman's right to choose. Contrary to popular belief, the Protect Life Act is not the Stupak-Pitts amendment of the 2009-2010 health care reform debate. It goes far beyond Stupak-Pitts to impose unprecedented limitations on abortion coverage and restricts access to abortion services for all women.

The Protect Life Act would have an adverse effect on women's access to reproductive services, especially for low-income minority women who are very likely to be underinsured or uninsured and use partial subsidies to purchase insurance.

It not only ends abortion coverage for women in the exchange who use their own private funds to pay for their insurance, but also essentially shuts down the private insurance market for abortion coverage. This act imposes crippling administrative burdens on insurance companies that choose to cover abortion care and bans abortion coverage from all multi-State plans, interfering with private insurance companies' decisions about what benefits to offer.

Simply put, the Protect Life Act is a misnomer. It poses a direct threat to the health and lives of women by restricting access to termination services, including factually accurate information such as the availability and coverage of abortion care by insurance plans. Even more troubling is the fact that this act creates an exception to the obligation of hospitals to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires appropriate treatment and referral for emergency patients. If enacted, hospitals could refuse to provide abortion services to pregnant women whose lives are in critical danger. This is beyond irresponsible. It is, indeed, reprehensible.

Finally, the Protect Life Act vastly broadens already expansive federal conscience laws without regard for patient protection or anti- discrimination protection for providers of abortion services. It safeguards from federal preemption State conscience laws beyond abortion, which could allow providers to drop their coverage of other reproductive health services like contraception and possibly even reproductive care such as mental health services and HIV counseling.

All I hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, especially those within segments of their party, is that they want the government to butt out. Why, then, are we considering legislation on the House floor that effectively overturns the privacy rights enumerated by the United States Supreme Court as well as increases burdensome government regulations on insurance companies? Congress should not be making personal health care decisions for women, and Congressmen really shouldn't be even involved in making personal health care decisions for women. That should be between a woman, her family, and her doctor.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to tell me how much time remains on each side?

Madam Speaker, with your permission, at this time, I am going to yield to a number of Members for unanimous consent, the first of whom is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

That declarative statement that you speak to, am I correct, Madam Speaker, that it could include a sentence?

At this time, I yield for a non- embellishment, unanimous consent request to the distinguished lady from California (Ms. Hahn).

I yield for a unanimous consent request to the distinguished lady from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished lady from California, a former member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Matsui, for unanimous consent.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for a unanimous consent request.

I yield to the distinguished lady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the purpose of offering a unanimous consent.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, would you tell us again how much time remains?

Thank you very much.

I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

How much time is remaining again, Madam Speaker?

At this time I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished woman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) for a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished lady from California (Ms. Chu).

I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished lady from California (Ms. Lee).

At this time, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I would ask the gentlelady if she is prepared to close.

Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, how much time remains?

I won't take all of that time, Madam Speaker, but I do wish to assert into this debate, it's been said often on the other side, and my distinguished friend from the Rules Committee made the point, that people came here and said that jobs were more important than life. I didn't hear anybody say that, and I don't believe anybody believes that.

But what I do believe that most of us understand is that this is not going to become the law and, therefore, what we are doing, in the final analysis, is a waste of time, and we could have been trying to do as we have not done in this session of Congress, address the subject of jobs.

Madam Speaker, what we have before us is an extremely flawed bill; and, contrary to their self-professed commitment to an open process, this particular provision being considered is under a closed rule.

Furthermore, I would also like to call into question how it's possible for us to consider this bill on the House floor when its sponsor, Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania, failed to provide a statement citing Congress's constitutional authority to enact it. Mr. Pitts's statement of constitutional authority for the Protect Life Act cites no provision of the Constitution or any amendment to the Constitution.

Therefore, I would like to request of him or Members on the other side to share with us the basis for this bill which violates the fundamental right to privacy upheld by the Supreme Court. It restricts women's access to health care and imposes further regulations on health insurance coverage. It's clear that the Protect Life Act lacks both constitutional and moral integrity.

Let me insert additionally some feelings that have been expressed in public, and I take the prerogative of using them here on the floor.

H.R. 358 comes on top of votes by the Republican-led House to eliminate all Federal funding for title X, the National Family Planning Program, to eliminate funding for all other reproductive health programs offering breast and cervical cancer exams or well-woman and primary health care and family planning to prevent unintended pregnancies and to reduce the need for abortion.

They've led measures that eliminate requirements in health care reform covering maternal health care, mammograms, breastfeeding support, and other essential health services.

In addition, they've made it impossible for women to speak to their doctors about abortion using Internet-based telemedicine.

Now, these are just a few examples. The Republicans are full of fuzzy facts. I start my day almost every day, Madam Speaker, by reading the cartoon, after other parts of the newspaper, ``Get Fuzzy.'' And the cat in that particular cartoon constantly comes up with fuzzy facts. If you put all the fuzzy facts together and all the things that the Republican majority has done, they include Tea Party-led efforts to gut Environmental Protection Agency rules that keep the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the environment in which we live safe. They have done efforts to virtually eliminate child nutrition. And I can't believe that 20 years I'm here, and I hear Republicans talk about cutting out the Head Start program, the one documented program that has benefited American society over and above what was thought.

They have done things to eliminate programs to help the unemployed to survive, to slash Medicaid and Medicare, to effectively abrogate any social contract and tear to shreds any social safety net.

I have to ask, exactly whose lives are we protecting here?

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 358 and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 430, I call up the bill (H.R. 358) to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such Act, and ask for its immediate consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am humbled to stand in this Chamber and engage in debate over such a critical matter as this. Like the civil rights movement, the pro-life cause has always been about one of securing rights for those who cannot speak for themselves and who cannot on their own obtain them. The fight goes all the way back to our Nation's beginning.

What more could our Founding Fathers have envisioned when they drafted the Declaration of Independence, proclaiming to all that America would ``hold these truths would be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness''? There it is.

The first unalienable right designated by the Declaration of Independence is our right to life. Our Founding Fathers must have deemed this an indispensable right, for its placement signifies it was not an afterthought.

From the start of our great Nation until now, countless men and women have fought and even sacrificed their own lives to protect that right for others. Yet, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that has

changed the course of history in this country. A right that had been protected for nearly 200 years was tossed aside by a court decision to legalize abortion. Up until that point, an unwanted pregnancy was likely to lead to an adoption, a process that placed an unwanted child in a caring home.

The legacy of the late Steve Jobs reminds us of the impact an adoption can have on the entire world. Fortunately for us, Jobs was born 18 years before Roe v. Wade. Shortly after his birth to a single mother, Jobs was adopted by a married couple in central California. He would go on to be the founder of a tech company that has literally changed the world. His was the route of many unexpected children before 1973.

Maya Angelou, Babe Ruth, and Eleanor Roosevelt are just a few of the many adoptees that have transformed the world we live in today.

Unfortunately, since Roe v. Wade, more and more women are being persuaded that abortion is nothing more than a simple medical procedure that will help them move on with their lives. This could not be further from the truth.

A study of Medi-Cal patients in California revealed that women who had had an abortion were 160 percent more likely to be admitted for psychiatric treatment than those who had carried the child to term and delivery. These women who chose to terminate their pregnancies then had to deal with the psychological devastation that is often associated with such a decision. Adding harm upon harm, abortion is a procedure that brings mental trauma to the mother and irreparable damage to the unborn.

Because of this, the policy of the Federal Government for the last 35 years has been to ban funding for such a procedure. Studies have shown that when the government subsidizes abortion, their number increases. The President, a supporter of abortion rights, has stated his commitment to reducing the amount of abortions in this country. Restoring the policy of prohibiting Federal funds for abortion would be a good first step. The American people, to a large degree, agree with this policy. In fact, as recently as last year, a survey revealed that 67 percent of Americans support a ban on abortion funding. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act failed to include this prohibition, and that is why we are here today.

President Obama indicated his support for upholding the ban on Federal funding for abortion in health reform, and that is exactly what the Protect Life Act does. The issue of prohibiting taxpayer funds for abortion is important to the American people. And so it should be important to Congress as well. Protecting the unalienable right to life is important to the American people. It should be to the Congress as well.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Hon. Fred Upton,

Chairman, House Committee on Energy & Commerce, Washington,

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. John Fleming.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I have a copy here of the PPACA law. On page 65, I'll just read one title of a paragraph: Abortions for which public funding is allowed.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana, Steve Scalise.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished vice chairman of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another distinguished member of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Phil Gingrey.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another leader on the life issue, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another eloquent voice for the unborn, the chair of the Pro-Life Women's Caucus, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).