Providing for consideration of 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.

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.

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).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to another outstanding voice for the unborn, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next gentleman, in response to the gentlelady, the House has passed 12 different jobs bills already. I believe the gentlelady has voted against every one. They're sitting in the Senate waiting for action.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona, another leader in the pro-life movement, Mr. Franks.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).

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

Madam Speaker, just to correct the gentlelady, there were three Stupak-Pitts amendments. Two were adopted in committee and one on the floor, which got the most publicity. When they went to the Senate, they were all taken out. We're going back to the original Stupak-Pitts amendments.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

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

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 358, legislation that infringes upon a woman's right to choose. This bill is unnecessary, divisive, and extreme. And it saddens me that the Republican leadership has chosen to bring this bill to the House floor when Americans are struggling.

The American people want us to work together to address their top priority: creating jobs. As such, we should be focusing on putting Americans back to work, not dividing Congress on ideological issues. And we certainly shouldn't be considering legislation that rolls back women's reproductive rights 38 years.

Supporters of this bill claim it is amending the Affordable Care Act to ensure U.S. tax dollars are not used to fund abortions. However, the Affordable Care Act already prohibits the use of Federal dollars to fund abortions. Instead, H.R. 358 will eliminate access to abortion care for many women by banning insurance plans regulated by the Affordable Care Act from offering abortion-inclusive coverage if they take even one federally subsidized customer. So if a plan takes one subsidized customer, then they can't provide abortion coverage insurance to anyone else in the plan.

What's even more concerning is that this legislation could place many women who need reproductive health care in dangerous, potentially life- threatening situations by expanding a lopsided policy that allows health workers and hospitals the ability to refuse to provide and refer for abortion care and even deny emergency abortion care.

So that's why I was so appalled, truly appalled yesterday by comments that

were made at the Rules Committee, and I want to set the record straight. This bill is not simply the Stupak-Pitts amendment that was debated and supported during the health reform consideration. During the Rules Committee, I heard that over and over again from the Republican side--this is just the Stupak bill all over again. That is simply not true.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 358 goes significantly beyond the Stupak amendment. The Stupak amendment limited its reach only to qualified health plans and had no effect on completely private plans. But H.R. 358 affects any health plan.

The Stupak amendment limited its reach only to Federal funding and insurance coverage of abortion. H.R. 358 includes access to abortion services, a much broader term with far-reaching effects.

And the Stupak amendment limited its reach only to State conscience protection laws that deal with abortion. But H.R. 358 expands that protection to those covering health and medical services outside of abortion.

The Stupak amendment did not create any exception to the obligation of hospitals to comply with EMTALA. Instead, it left that obligation intact.

So, as my colleagues will see, no one should be fooled by the argument that this is simply Stupak because it's simply not. I want to emphasize, the effect of this amendment would mean that, effectively, women would not be able to get any kind of health insurance for abortion coverage either because they wouldn't be able to get a comprehensive plan on the exchange or because they would be forced to try to buy one outside the exchange just for abortion services, which isn't going to be available.

So, practically speaking, what the Pitts amendment does is make it impossible for a woman to exercise her right under the Constitution if she chooses to have an abortion because she won't be able to get insurance coverage for it at all.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 358 is a massive overreach of women's health. It extensively restricts women's access to reproductive health services and lifesaving care. It is a step towards eliminating a choice that our Supreme Court has deemed legal and remains legal to this day.

Now, if you want to overturn Roe v. Wade, and I know that there are Members on the other side of the aisle who feel that way, then they can try to do that. But don't do it in a sneaky way by denying women insurance and effectively saying that they can't exercise what the Supreme Court says is their right under the Constitution.

Women need and are entitled to safe, affordable health care options. This bill only serves to create health and financial challenges that I think are going to be impossible to overcome. It's dangerous to women's health.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``nay'' on the legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on both sides of the aisle?

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, who is also a member of the Health Subcommittee, Ms. Baldwin.

Madam Speaker, may I ask about the time again?

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who is a member of the Health Subcommittee.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

Madam Speaker, let me be very clear. The only ``no'' that is being said is ``no'' to the vulnerable women who are traveling in emergency ambulances to the hospital, desiring emergency treatment, dying, and not being able to be treated, needing to correct a problem that has, in fact, damaged their health and not being able to be treated.

Not only is this bill unconstitutional, but the Affordable Care Act does not promote abortion. Frankly, Federal funds are not being utilized for abortion as it will complicate the insurance process for all women in America.

All you can hear is the siren going around and around and around-- that woman lying on a gurney--and that hospital being able to say ``no'' and ``yes.'' The only ``no'' is that she will not live because this bill is passed.

I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill. Vote for life. Vote against this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 358, The Protect Life Act. This bill will have a detrimental impact on women's

health, and moreover, attacks a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose. It will restrict Access to health care services. It would effectively shut down the private insurance market for allowing women to get complete health care coverage. Once again instead of focusing on JOBS we are again focusing on issues that will not help to feed American families.

As a strong advocate for women's health, I cannot stand by and watch as those who do not support the rights of women to determine their health care options find different and often insidious ways to take away their ability to have full health care coverage.

We are asking women to give up their right to privacy. These decisions need to be between a woman and her doctor. She has the right to determine who, if anyone else she would like to inform of her health care choices. In addition to rendering it nearly impossible for women to get insurance coverage for abortion care in the new state health exchanges, H.R. 358 allows public hospitals to refuse to provide emergency abortion care, even in situations when the procedure is necessary to save a woman's life.

This has been a long and hard fight. Thirty-eight years ago, the American people learned of the Supreme Court's momentous ruling in Roe versus Wade--the case which established constitutional restrictions on the State's ability to regulate or restrict a woman's decision to have an abortion. In the year 1973, the Supreme Court asserted that the 14th amendment protects a woman's right to choose for herself whether to have an abortion.

Many women in 1973 must have viewed the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe versus Wade as an encouraging turning point in the way our courts recognize the rights of women under the Constitution. The Roe versus Wade decision at last offered a choice to many women who had been victims of rape or incest, but had been denied abortion as a legal option. Roe versus Wade offered a choice to many women whose lives would have been threatened by going through childbirth, but had been denied abortion as a legal option. And Roe versus Wade offered a choice to women who, for a variety of personal reasons, would prefer not to carry a pregnancy to term, but had earlier been denied abortion as a legal option.

Indeed, it is my hope that the Supreme Court will continue to protect women against any State erosion of a woman's individual rights. Let us not undermine the breakthrough made for women by the Supreme Court in 1973. Let us not jeopardize the right of a woman to choose whether she will bear children. Let us not place a woman's right to personal privacy at risk. Instead, let us reaffirm those rights and give consistent support not only to those who choose to have children, but also to those who do not.

Since Roe v. Wade, a woman's right to choose has been systematically eroded by anti-choice legislators. In fact, more than 450 anti-choice measures have been enacted in the states since 1995, essentially rolling back this fundamental right for many women. Women in 19 states could face sweeping bans on abortion if the Supreme Court reverses Roe and allows states to re-criminalize abortion, menacing doctors and their patients with the threat of criminal investigation, prosecution, and even imprisonment.

The argument has been over and over that tax payer dollars should not be used to fund abortions. This argument is an extreme overreach. The Affordable Care Act already includes a provision that prohibits any U.S. taxpayer dollars from funding abortions. As this is the case the purpose of this bill seems to only be to rattle people's cages by attacking women and failing to address the job crisis in this country. We should focus on creating jobs. This bill seems to be a red herring. Instead of focusing on jobs, the economy, rebuilding America, we are instead focusing on an issue that everyone knows is divisive.

Women would no longer be able to have full health care coverage without disclosing very personal information. They must predict in advance whether or not they are going to use a service that is legal in this country. It is the law, and the law should be upheld. Women would be required to buy separate coverage specifically for abortions. There is no such policy for any health procedure that a man may be required to undergo. This is an issue of privacy, this is an issue of fairness, and this is an issue of gender equality. A woman like a man has the right to make private, personal choices about her health. She should not be punished by not having access to adequate health care. This is about a constitutional right!