Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3) to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have had many misnamed bills, euphemistically called almost anything to try to make some kind of point, but this one does not have a thing in the world to do with restricting Federal money used in abortions. That has not been done for 30 years. This bill actually says let's try to make sure that no insurance companies in the country will ever cover them again no matter what the circumstances.

With no other medical procedure would we be even standing here talking about what's best for American citizens. In all my years in Congress, I have never had to debate a bill about how and when a patient can receive an appendectomy nor a bill about how or when a patient can receive corrective surgery nor is it legal to have a vasectomy.

Yet here we are today debating a bill that will reach far beyond the status quo and place restrictions on the constitutionally protected right to access reproductive health care. In the case of abortion, it has been decided with this bill that they can dictate how and when a woman is allowed to receive reproductive health care.

In part because women are instinctual nurturers, the decision about whether or not to have an abortion is one of the most personal and important decisions that they will ever make. In making this decision, a woman should be free to consult with whomever she pleases, whether it be her doctor, her spouse, her family, a parent, confidant, or religious adviser.

But a woman should never, never be forced to adhere to extreme restrictions placed upon her by Members of Congress. I've served in three legislatures, and in every one of them were always men in blue suits who knew very little about the life-altering experience of pregnancy and birth who demanded this kind of action.

I have often spoken in support of a woman's right to access an abortion and have many people, including some of my own constituents, who disagree with me, and that's fine. They have never, however, tried by law to enforce upon me what they themselves believe.

Once I was at a meeting in my district and I was asked by a man who was strongly opposed to a woman's right to choose, What should be done about that? And my response to him was simple and personal and still applies today.

I asked him that if, God forbid, he ever finds himself in a difficult position of having to decide whether or not his wife needed to have an abortion, either because of the health of the fetus or the mother was in danger or because of another personal or private matter, is he willing to say to people gathered in the hospital and during the discussion, No decision can be made until Louise Slaughter gets here because Congress will make that decision for him?

The right to an abortion is already a procedure that is carefully regulated by the decision of Roe v. Wade. Today's legislation would go far beyond this status quo and further restrict access in an attempt to make it practically impossible to receive an abortion under these laws.

Today's bill changes the tax system--this is an important point and I want you to understand this--for private health care plans that offer abortion coverage to small businesses and individuals, as most of them do. If passed into law, this bill would pressure private health insurance plans to stop offering that coverage altogether. And that, Madam Speaker, is the purpose of this bill.

In addition, and most egregiously, today's legislation opens the door to the IRS audits of rape and incest survivors, to prove that they followed the law when paying for an abortion. Do we do this with anything else--I'm absolutely astonished--to place this kind of burden on a medical procedure? It's been designed specifically to chip away at the rights of women.

Most egregiously, this bill has put a dangerous provision into the committee report that accompanies this bill. Please listen up. You need to know what this says in this report language, which is as important as the bill itself. That report language states that the legislation is intended to prohibit the use of Federal money to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the rape of a child too young to give consent.

Now, think about that for a moment. This bill forbids any money being used to help that child. It's not bad enough that they have been raped or that they are victims of incest. Now we're telling them that they have to keep records so that they can prove to the IRS that they followed the law? That is what I thought about when I made the statement earlier this spring ``show me your papers.'' And that is precisely what this bill is asking to do.

If this bill becomes law, think about the statutory rape. Think about your children. Think about other people's children. If it becomes law, the committee report will become one of the

documents relied upon by the courts when deciding the cases about abortion. With the committee report in hand, a future justice would have the document they need to further restrict access to abortion for victims of rape and incest. If this sounds extreme, believe me, it is.

We, like our Nation's Founders, know that each individual is entitled to his or her beliefs. But no matter how strongly we believe them, we should not be allowed to force them upon others as we wish. Yet placing an ideology upon others and restricting their choices when it comes to reproductive health is the spirit behind today's legislation and one of the many reasons why it should be stopped.

As we all know, at the time of our Nation's founding, the ideal of equal rights and freedoms was far from realized. In fact, it was not even of much concern. African Americans were property; women could not vote or own anything; and indeed, a pregnant woman who was widowed could find that her child had been willed away from her by her husband, who had all the rights. Native Americans were pushed off their land and out of our society.

With great struggle and over time--and certainly, I know of the struggle for women's rights because of what happened in my own district, which is where that struggle began--we have righted many of these wrongs, and as a Nation, we have come to believe that men and women of every color and creed are created equal, that we are all entitled to the rights and individual freedoms at the core of our Nation's ideals.

Today's proposed legislation up-ends the principle of equal rights and freedoms by placing severe restrictions on the constitutionally protected right to an abortion. Instead of crafting legislation to restrict a woman's right to safe, secure reproductive health, this Congress should respect the rights of women and uphold their constitutionally protected rights.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and on the underlying bill, which may be the most egregious that comes to the floor this year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

I yield myself 30 seconds just to speak to something that is very important.

H.R. 3 is actually dangerous for women's health. By refusing to provide any exceptions to women who are facing serious health conditions--cancer, heart or whatever that may be--you are forcing women to choose to risk their health or to risk bankruptcy, and I think that is morally unacceptable.

Under H.R. 3, a woman facing cancer who needs to terminate a pregnancy in order to live might have to go into debt over the $10,000 that the legal and necessary procedure could cost. Despite having both health insurance and tax-preferred savings accounts, this bill would prevent her from having that.

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a nurse, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to put in the real Guttmacher statement, what they have said. ``The claim that restoration of Federal Medicaid coverage would result in a significant increase in the incidence of abortion nationwide is not supported by research, and extrapolating from Guttmacher's Medicaid

findings to assert that coverage in the private insurance market is strongly linked to abortion incidence is entirely illegitimate.''

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the

gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I first want to remind people what we've said about statutory rape. When this bill was first introduced, it modified the long-standing rape exception to the Hyde amendment by adding the term ``forcible'' before the word ``rape.'' In other words, the victim of rape had to show wounds and other matters that she really was forcibly raped before she could be covered, but they changed that because there was such an outcry. But they have found another way to get to exclude other victims of rape. Just saying those words scandalizes me.

The House Judiciary Committee report, which will be used by the courts to interpret the intent of this bill, says the bill will not allow the Federal Government to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape, claiming that this reflects existing law, and of course it does not. Statutory rape is one of the most serious of crimes because the young woman involved has not given consent and, indeed, is not allowed to because of her age. How dare we do that? Have they not suffered enough?

The Hyde amendment does not distinguish between statutory rape or any other kind of rape. In fact, a 1978 regulation implementing the Hyde amendment makes clear that it includes victims of statutory rape in the funding exemption.

Now, if most people in the United States don't want their tax money used for abortions, they can relax. We've not been using tax money for 38 years. We're not going to change that with this bill. That's not the intent of this bill at all. It's simply the title, which is meaningless.

What it does do is it increases taxes on middle class and lower- income women and their families, but it singles out small business employers and penalizes them if they provide comprehensive insurance coverage that includes abortion. Nearly two-thirds of all voters polled--this is two-thirds--oppose this draconian change in the tax system for small business and individuals with plans that cover abortion. In fact, even most Republicans, tea party supporters, anti- abortion workers, and evangelical Christians oppose the tax increase.

As the head of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce wrote in a Hill column Monday: ``H.R. 3 is simply a slap in the face to the millions of small businesses now offering health insurance to employees and eligible for the new tax credits'' that come from the new health care bill.

[From The Hill's Congress Blog, May 2, 2011]

H.R. 3 A Deliberate Attack on Small Business

(By Frank Knapp, Jr.)

After decades of escalading group health insurance premiums

and demands for Congressional action for relief, a little

over one year ago many of our small businesses finally were

given the opportunity for federal health insurance tax

credits.

Now H.R. 3, up for a vote this week, threatens to erase

this benefit for small businesses because it would eliminate

the health insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care

Act for any existing or new plans that provide coverage for

abortion.

The problems H.R. 3 would cause for small businesses that

are trying to do the right thing and offer health insurance

have nothing to do with the ideological intent of this bill.

Even if a small business owner agrees with the intent, the

cost of passage of H.R. 3 in terms of time, money and

continuity of policy is very significant.

Small business owners do not have the expertise to closely

examine healthcare plans to determine if abortion coverage is

included. Such services are not labeled ``abortion'' but

rather fall into numerous clauses in a health care policy

from prescription drugs to outpatient surgery to maternity

care that includes unforeseen complications. Small business

owners are no more prepared to completely understand the fine

print of their health insurance policies than members of

Congress.

Requiring a small business owner to try to understand the

intricacies of their health insurance policies would require

considerable time on their own or with an insurance agent

(who also probably has no idea how to interpret the verbiage

in the policy as it relates to abortion). Essentially H.R. 3

will cause a small employer to divert time from running the

business. And if time is money, as we are all told, then H.R.

3 will be an increase in cost for small businesses offering

health insurance.

Small businesses that finally determine that their health

insurance policy does in fact cover even one abortion service

will be financially punished in one of two ways. Either they

can keep their present policy and lose thousands of dollars

in hard won tax credits or they will give up their current

health plan and most likely have to pay higher premiums for a

new plan. The latter will result from both re-underwriting by

a new carrier and adding provisions now required in any new

policy. This is especially true since the health insurance

exchanges will not be in place until 2014 to increase

competition for this business.

H.R. 3 is simply a slap in the face to the millions of

small businesses now offering health insurance to employees

and eligible for the new tax credits. Targeting small

businesses for such punitive action, while ignoring big

businesses that also receive tax benefits when offering

health insurance, demonstrates a callous disregard for the

``backbone of our economy'', as members of Congress love to

proclaim.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank my good friend Mr. Nugent for yielding and thank him for his leadership.

Madam Speaker, America has changed and today is more pro-life than ever. By ever-increasing majorities, especially among our young people, the megatrend is to protect the child in the womb from the insidious violence of abortion and to protect women from the trauma, often lifelong emotional harm, of procuring an abortion.

This paradigm shift, reflected in all the major polls, is the direct result of pro-life education, pregnancy care centers, pro-life laws, including funding bans, informed consent and parental involvement statutes, the molding of consciences by the faith-based community and advances in ultrasound that have shattered the pernicious pro-abortion myth that the baby in the womb isn't a human person or alive or of innate value.

Even Planned Parenthood abortion clinic director Abby Johnson was shocked into her new pro-life view by witnessing an ultrasound-guided abortion of a 13-week-old baby who was dismembered and pulverized in real time right before her eyes at that Texas clinic.

But perhaps the greatest reason for the huge shift in public opinion in favor of life is the growing number of extraordinarily brave post- abortive women who deeply regret their abortions and today are silent no more.

One post-abortive woman told a group outside the U.S. Supreme Court, and I heard her say it, that as she lay on the operating table, the abortionist laughed as he inserted a sharp knife into her womb and said, ``Oh, it is trying to get away.'' Partially sedated, the woman immediately pleaded with the nurse and doctor to stop the abortion and to spare her child. They told her to shut up. Today she is deeply wounded by that cruel assault, that lethal assault on her baby.

Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, has had two abortions. Today she has joined the growing coalition of women who deeply regret their abortions. Out of deep personal pain and compassion for others, they challenge us to respect, protect and tangibly love both mother and child.

The women of Silent No More give post-abortive women a safe place to grieve and a roadmap to reconciliation. And to society at large, and especially to Congress, these brave women compel us to rethink and to reassess the cheap sophistry of the abortion culture. Reflecting on her famous uncle's speech, the ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Dr. Alveda King asks us: ``How can the dream survive if we murder the children?''

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt whatsoever that ending public funding for abortions saves lives. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute in June of 2009 in a report said ``approximately one-fourth of women who would have had Medicaid-funded abortions if the Hyde amendment didn't exist instead give birth when this funding is unavailable.''

I vividly remember the late Congressman Henry Hyde being moved to tears when he learned that the Hyde amendment had likely saved the lives of more than 1 million children, who today are perhaps in school and getting ready for summer vacation, perhaps playing sports, or, if they are in their twenties or thirties, building their own families.

H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, comprehensively ensures that all programs authorized and appropriated by the Federal Government, including ObamaCare, including the Hyde amendment, do not subsidize the killing of babies except in the rare cases of rape, incest and life of the mother.

H.R. 3 ends the current IRS policy allowing tax-favored treatment for abortions under itemized deductions, HSAs, MSAs and FSAs. H.R. 3 also ends the use of tax credits under ObamaCare to purchase insurance plans that include abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother.

Today we seek to end taxpayer complicity in abortion violence. No taxpayer should be coerced to pay, subsidize or facilitate the dismemberment, the chemical poisoning, the starvation--and remember, that is how RU-486 works; it first starves the baby to death, then the other chemical brings on delivery of a dead baby--or the suctioning to death of a child and the harming of women.

Regarding conscience rights, H.R. 3 protects pro-life health care entities by discrimination by State, local and Federal governments and empowers the courts with the authority to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of conscience.

The need for this protection is great. According to the Alliance of Catholic Health Care, which represents California's Catholic health systems and hospitals, ``California's Catholic hospitals operate in a public policy environment that regularly challenges the concept of conscience rights protections by attempting to coerce them and other health care providers to perform, be complicit in or pay for abortions.''

So I urge Members to support this legislation. It is backed by 228 cosponsors.

I thank my good friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith, for his great leadership. I want to thank Mr. Lipinski, prime cosponsor of H.R. 3. I want to thank the other distinguished chairmen, Dave Camp; and Fred Upton; our extraordinary Speaker, John Boehner, for his eloquent statement and for his compassion for both mothers and children who are hurt by abortions; and for Eric Cantor, our superb majority leader, and the 228 cosponsors of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt whatsoever that ending all public funding for abortions saves lives. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute said in an analysis in 2009 that ``approximately one-fourth of women who would have had Medicaid-funded abortions (if the Hyde amendment did not exist) instead give birth when this funding is unavailable.'' In other words, when public funding and facilitation isn't available for abortion, children have a greater chance at survival.

I said earlier during the debate on the rule that I remember the late Congressman Henry Hyde being moved literally to tears--I was in the room when it happened--when he learned that the Hyde amendment had likely saved the lives of more than 1 million babies who today are getting on with their lives, going to school, forging a career, perhaps serving in this Chamber--at least some of them--or even establishing their own families.

H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, comprehensively ensures that all programs authorized and appropriated by the Federal Government, including ObamaCare, do not subsidize the killing of babies except in the rare cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. H.R. 3 ends the current IRS policy of allowing tax favored treatment for abortions under itemized deductions, HSAs, MSAs, and FSAs. H.R. 3 also ends the use of tax credits under ObamaCare to purchase insurance plans that include abortions, again, except cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother.

Madam Speaker, we know that Americans are taking a good, long, hard second look at abortion. The polls show it. On taxpayer funding, a supermajority--over 60 percent and some polls put it as high as 68 or 69 percent--do not want their funding being used to pay for abortions.

Earlier in the debate, some of my colleagues had suggested that this is a tax increase; yet the Americans for Tax Reform, who doggedly protect the public purse, have said, ``Americans for Tax Reform has no problems or issues with H.R. 3. The bill has no net tax change whatsoever.''

H.R. 3 also makes the Hyde-Weldon conscience protection permanent and significantly more effective by authorizing the courts to prevent or redress actual or threatened violations of conscience. And we know without any doubt that there are huge pressures, particularly in some States, like California, to coerce healthcare providers and plans and insurers and entire health care systems--especially those who are faith-based--to change their policy and to permit abortion on demand.

The need for this protection--Hyde-Weldon--is great. According to Alliance of Catholic Health Care, which represents California's Catholic Health Systems and Hospitals, ``California's Catholic hospitals operate in a public policy environment that regularly challenges the concept of conscience-rights protections by attempting to coerce them and other health care providers to perform, be complicit in, or pay for abortion.''

On three different occasions in the past three years, the California Department of Managed Health Care denied health insurance plan applications because the plans excluded abortion coverage and demanded that all healthcare plans must provide coverage for all basic health care services and medically-necessary health services including so- called ``medically-necessary abortions.'' This is a clear violation of the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause, but the injured parties lack judicial recourse. This legislation would remedy this problem by making the policy permanent and providing access to the courts.

Let me just conclude, Madam Speaker. Someday I truly believe future generations of Americans will look back on us, especially policymakers, and wonder how and why such a rich and seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect vulnerable human life, could have instead so aggressively promoted death to children and the exploitation of their moms. They will note with deep sadness that some of our most prominent politicians, while they talked about human rights, they never lifted a finger to protect the most persecuted minority in the world, the child in the womb. Protect innocent life, vote for H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

Madam Speaker, today we have an opportunity to examine H.R. 3, ``the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,'' a bill which is claimed to simply codify what is already law. However, H.R. 3 is by far more restrictive than any current law, or interpretation thereof.

My colleagues across the aisle claim that this bill is simply about limiting federal funding for abortions. If that were truly the case, then there would be no purpose for H.R. 3, because Federal funding has not been available for abortions since passage of the Hyde amendment in 1977.

The effect of H.R. 3 is, in fact, to so drastically limit access to abortions that they will essentially become unavailable, even when paid for with an individual's own funds. In its attempt to make abortions unavailable, H.R. 3 will have a detrimental impact on women's health, and moreover, attacks a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose.

Twice, first in the Judiciary Committee Markup and secondly when H.R. 3 was being considered in the Rules Committee, I have attempted to offer to amendments to this bill that help to protect both the constitutionally protected rights of women, and their health. In both instances, my amendments were not accepted by the Republican majority on the Rules Committee.

My first amendment would have required the Attorney General to certify to Congress that H.R. 3 does not violate any constitutionally protected right before allowing this bill to take effect. The sponsor's of this bill have been perfectly clear that their goal with H.R. 3 is to create so many barriers and obstacles to abortion that it essentially becomes unavailable. The law is clear that while the government may regulate, it cannot impose an undue burden on a constitutionally protected right. The effect of H.R. 3 would be to impose such an insurmountable burden on a woman's fundamental right to make decisions about pregnancy that it could very likely be considered unconstitutional.

The second amendment I attempted to offer would have created an exception to protect women from severe long lasting health damage. This amendment is supported by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Every year, 10-15 million women suffer severe or long- lasting damage to their health during pregnancy, including but not limited to lung disease, heart disease diabetes, and loss of reproductive ability. H.R. 3 only considered a woman's health when she is faced with death, but provides no protection for women who face serious health consequences from continuing a pregnancy. Congress should not be in the business of interfering with a woman's health, nor should we ever single out women who choose not to endure long-lasting health defects or diseases due to a pregnancy.

H.R. 3 would impose a great burden on a women like Tamara, a mother of 3 who had been diagnosed with cervical cancer and found out she was pregnant. She was faced with the difficult choice of carrying the pregnancy to term and risking her own health or terminating the pregnancy to receive treatment for her cancer.

H.R. 3 would impose a great burden on women like Holly from my state of Texas, a mother of two who suffered from a serious illness affecting her liver. Treatment for her liver would pose a threat to her pregnancy.

H.R. 3 goes to new lengths by effectively using the tax code to impede upon a woman's right to choose and essentially penalize individuals for even carrying health insurance that covers abortions.

It imposes an unprecedented penalty on anyone who spends their own money to pay for abortion, or in many cases, those who use their own money for insurance that will cover abortion if needed.

H.R. 3 will actually impose a tax increase on many Americans--across all races, all classes, and all socioeconomic levels. It increases taxes on women, families, and businesses by denying them the normal tax exemptions and credits for health insurance if they choose a policy that provides abortion coverage. This unprecedented penalty is a radical restriction on a lawful and constitutionally protected medical procedure. It will result in a tax increase on anyone who uses their own money to pay for abortion or, in many cases, insurance that would cover abortion.

Furthermore, the Bill puts the IRS into the middle of private and personal decisions by families. The result of this bill would also be that the IRS would be required to use the tools currently available as part of its tax enforcement duties, including the IRS's ability to audit taxpayers, to determine whether tax benefits had properly or improperly been claimed with respect to expenses related to abortion services. Family planning decisions, which are amongst the most personal and private decisions many people face, are subject to scrutiny by the IRS for tax purposes.

H.R. 3 does not merely codify existing protections for so-called rights of conscience. H.R. 3 rejects the even-handed approach taken since 1973 in the Church Amendment, which protects the religious or moral beliefs of those who provide, or refuse to provide, abortion services.

Furthermore, it takes the more-recent Weldon Amendment approach, which allows a large universe of entities to refuse abortion services for any--or no reason whatsoever. Unlike the Church Amendment approach, H.R. 3 protects only those who refuse to provide abortion services, and makes that one-sided protection permanent for all laws by providing a completely new private cause of action. It does nothing to protect those entities that do offer abortions.

The conscience rights of those who provide services, and not just those who refuse, deserve equal respect and recognition. Americans rights of conscience should not be protected only if they accord with the views of the Members of Congress; they should be protected regardless of what lawmakers' personal beliefs are.

Instead of Bringing Up Bills to Create Jobs, Republicans Are Pursuing An Extreme and Divisive Agenda. Today, the House will consider H.R. 3, Restricting Women's Access to Full Range of Health Care Services. Americans want us to work together to create jobs and move the country forward. This bill would do exactly the opposite--move our country backwards in an attempt to re-litigate a divisive issue.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 237 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

House Resolution 237 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3. The rule provides for ample debate on this bill and gives Members of both the minority and the majority the opportunity to participate in the debate.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying

bill. For the past 30 years, we've used a patchwork system of clauses and amendments to protect American tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions. Every year Congress has to attach a series of amendments to appropriation bills specifically stating that funds spent in that legislation may not be used for elective abortions. Every year these amendments pass. These amendments pass, Madam Speaker, because Members of Congress know and recognize the fact that the vast majority of Americans do not want their hard-earned money to be spent for abortions of innocent, unborn lives.

In 2010 the Zogby/O'Leary poll found that 77 percent of Americans believe that Federal funds should never be used to pay for abortions or should only be used to save the life of the mother--77 percent, Madam Speaker. This number proves that even people who support a woman's right to choose still believe that tax dollars should not pay for that choice.

Clearly the time has come to move beyond this piecemeal approach and reform the way our Nation addresses this very important and sensitive issue.

H.R. 3 simply codifies and makes permanent the policies that currently rely upon regular, re-approval of Congress. Among the riders made permanent to H.R. 3 are:

the Hyde amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage through any program funded through the annual Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act;

the Helms amendment, which prohibits funding for abortion as a method of family planning overseas;

the Smith Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage for Federal employees;

the Dornan amendment, which prohibits the use of congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the District of Columbia;

the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause, which ensures that recipients of Federal funding do not discriminate against doctors, nurses, and hospitals because they do not provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortions.

Madam Speaker, a woman's right to choose can be a divisive issue that splits the American people down the middle. However, we aren't talking about a 50/50 issue; we're talking about 77 percent. It's clearly a majority.

Just like Americans on both sides of the aisle believe that tax dollars shouldn't go to pay for abortions, so do the Members of Congress from both parties. There are 227 bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 3. I'm proud to be one of those cosponsors.

H.R. 3 will ensure that American taxpayers are not forced to fund what many consider the destruction of innocent human life through abortion on demand.

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act will establish a government- wide statutory prohibition on funding abortion or insurance coverage that includes abortion. This comprehensive approach will reduce the need for numerous separate abortion-funding riders.

It eliminates abortion-related amendments to appropriation bills, bills that the rules of the House remind us aren't even supposed to legislate through amendments. It ensures that all Federal programs are subject to this important safeguard.

Once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, Dr. Gingrey of Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the author of H.R. 3.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to my colleague from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, I need to correct one thing. The word ``forcible'' is nowhere in the statute or the legislation as we have it on the floor.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have you believe that H.R. 3 is about taking away a woman's right to choose. That is simply not true. H.R. 3 is about ensuring that taxpayers aren't on the hook for paying for that choice. My Democratic colleagues would have you believe that we want to raise your taxes and allow the IRS to audit women. Again, that is simply not true. The bill is about one thing: keeping our tax dollars from being spent for elective abortions on demand.

The United States is currently borrowing 42 cents of every dollar we spend. We are in debt and spending money we don't have. We need to focus on bringing our government back to its core mission. You can't tell me that paying for elective abortions is part of our core mission.

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

The previous question was ordered.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her strong work on this bill.

Madam Speaker, this bill is unprecedented in a number of ways. It is unprecedented in that it uniquely affects my district, and yet I was not allowed to testify at the hearing of the Judiciary Committee where it was considered. It is unprecedented in its attack on a woman's right to choose, going

well beyond the Hyde amendment. And it is unprecedented in seeking to federalize the local funds of the District of Columbia.

Section 309 of this bill would make permanent the ban in the recent 2011 spending bill that keeps the District from spending its own local funds on abortions for poor women. That's bad enough, but the party that came to power even to devolve Federal power back to the States is engaged in the reverse process in this bill, in federalizing what has always been understood in our Constitution to be local power and, worse, local money and deciding how it should be spent.

It is a dictatorship over local funds. It goes against every principle that the majority claims to support when it cites the Constitution. It goes against the accepted practice, a practice you can do nothing about in the States, where 17 States have, of course, spent their own local funds on abortions for poor women for decades, recognizing that this could not be done with Federal money.

The District of Columbia does not ask for 1 cent of Federal money. In the same way, the District of Columbia demands that its local funds be kept local for us as for every other jurisdiction of this body.

Congressional Black Caucus,

Washington, DC, May 3, 2011.

Dear Senators Boxer, Cantwell, Feinstein, Gillibrand,

Hagan, Klobuchar, Landrieu, McCaskill, Mikulski, Murray,

Shaheen, and Stabenow: We, the women of the Congressional

Black Caucus, write for two reasons. First, we want to

express our gratitude to you, the Democratic women of the

Senate, for successfully blocking the Planned Parenthood

rider from the final fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution

(CR). The rider was an attack on the health and lives of all

American women, especially women of modest means. The public

conditioning of your support for the CR on the exclusion of

the rider made the critical difference. We agreed with your

strong position, which showed the country that you would not

abandon women in a tough fight. Although our party is in the

minority in the House, we are ready to join with you to

defeat future Republican attacks on women's health.

However, we are deeply disappointed that low-income women

in the District of Columbia were sacrificed during the CR

negotiations. The Administration and Senate Democratic

Leadership agreed to re-impose a rider prohibiting the

District government from spending its own local taxpayer-

raised funds on abortions for low-income women. The poor

women in the District have already begun to feel the terrible

effects of the rider. Abortions are time-sensitive, and

scores of women scheduled for District-funded abortions at a

Planned Parenthood clinic immediately had their appointments

canceled. This paradox cannot be overlooked. Non- profits in

the District, including the DC Abortion Fund which helps D.C.

women pay for abortions, are desperately trying to raise

funds to mitigate the harm done by the rider.

Not only did this concession by Democrats violate our

party's long-standing support for reproductive choice and for

the District's right to self-government, it was unnecessary.

As House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has noted, fifty-nine

House Republicans voted against the CR. This means 36

Democratic votes were needed to reach 218 votes for passage.

According to media reports, most House Republicans who voted

against the CR did so because it did not cut enough spending,

not because of the absence of the Planned Parenthood or of

any other rider. In fact, the CR was remarkably clean, with

only four riders. Only two were controversial, D.C. abortion

and a new private school voucher program in the District. It

is no wonder that the District felt abandoned.

The D.C. abortion rider, as well as every other anti-home-

rule rider, was removed during the last four years of

Democratic congressional control. This was a historic first

that could not have been achieved without your help. As the

fiscal year 2012 appropriations process begins, we believe it

would be invaluable if you stated, early and publicly, your

opposition to the inclusion of the D.C. abortion rider in the

fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill. This is perhaps the

only way to keep it out of the bill after Democrats agreed to

it in the CR. Such a statement would not only help in fiscal

year 2012, it would discourage House Republicans from

escalating their attacks on women in the District, which are

already underway.

An odious anti-choice bill, H.R. 3 (the No Taxpayer Funding

for Abortion Act), is due on the House floor this week. It

would make the D.C. abortion rider permanent. Although we

know you will not allow H.R. 3 to pass in the Senate, House

Republicans may feel emboldened to bring up a permanent D.C.

abortion ban as a stand-alone bill or to attach it to another

bill. The consideration of H.R. 3 on the House floor could

provide you an occasion to speak out against it and to note

the D.C. provision as a special reason for your opposition.

You could also use this opportunity to indicate your

opposition to a D.C. abortion rider in the fiscal year 2012

appropriations bill.

District women have no vote in Congress and no

representation in the Senate. The city's low-income women

need the support of women in Congress who not only have a

vote, but who have also shown they will stand with women

everywhere.

Sincerely,

Barbara Lee, Karen Bass, Donna Christensen, Eddie Bernice

Johnson, Corrine Brown, Yvette Clarke, Donna Edwards,

Sheila Jackson Lee, Laura Richardson, Terri Sewell,

Marcia Fudge, Gwen Moore, Maxine Waters, Frederica

Wilson, Members of Congress.