No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2014

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will attach extraneous material to this part of my speech since we only have 30 minutes on two legislative matters.

Madam Speaker, at a time when millions are struggling to find work, the majority has decided that their top priority, one of the first 10 bills of the session that they number, is to continue the decades-long assault on a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose.

Before I go any further, let me be clear: this bill is a hoax. Federal taxpayer dollars are not spent on abortion. This has been true for more than three decades. Under the Hyde amendment, the use of Federal dollars to pay for abortions is flatly prohibited except in the case of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is in danger.

Thus, despite what the majority may claim, H.R. 7 is not a solution to a problem but a poorly, thinly veiled attempt to chip away at ObamaCare and women's reproductive rights, another battle in the war against women.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 is a reflection of a majority out of touch with the American people and struggling to understand fundamental truths about reproductive health. And we really mean struggle.

This extreme legislation was originally sponsored by a man, originated from a subcommittee composed of 13 men, and was passed out of the Judiciary Committee with the votes of 21 Republican men. This has been the problem for a long time--men in blue suits and red ties determining what women can and should do when it comes to their own health.

One such Republican man has declared that ``wife is to voluntarily submit'' to her husband in a book that he recently wrote. Another has declared, and this is a new one, this is not the one from the last election, ``the incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.'' In other words, Madam Speaker, the men who are making these decisions simply don't know what they are talking about.

Meanwhile, a Republican man on the Judiciary Committee recently said that today's legislation is good for reducing the unemployment numbers because:

Having new children brought into the world is not harmful

to job creation. It very much promotes job creation for care

and services and so on that need to be provided for a lot of

people to raise children.

Unfortunately, the hypocrisy of that statement is it comes from a majority that staunchly opposes increasing any funding for pre-K education or paid sick leave for working parents, and the same majority cutting nutritional benefits for the working poor under the farm bill that we will consider tomorrow. Such a hypocritical and mean-spirited agenda reminds me of another quote from former Congressman Barney Frank who once famously said that

the anti-choice legislators ``believe that life begins at conception but ends at birth.'' In other words, once it is born, they don't want to have anything to do with it. In looking at the majority's legislative priorities, it is almost impossible to disagree.

Madam Speaker, a new poll shows that 64 percent of Americans agree that ``decisions on abortion should be made by a woman and her doctor.'' The government should never have gotten into the business of being between the woman and her doctor, or anyone else she wants to consult. Only 24 percent say ``government has a right and obligation to pass restrictions on abortion.'' Perhaps that is why the majority is passing H.R. 7 on the same day as the State of the Union, because we know it is not going anywhere. We know that the Senate will not take this up; and if by some strange set of events it should pass the Senate, which it won't, the President would never sign it.

But anyway, we bring it up on the same day of the State of the Union, rushing it through Congress to make some kind of point to some people somewhere before they leave on a weekend retreat and making one rule to consider two drastically different bills even though we would have had plenty of time to have had two rules here.

Included under today's rule is the conference report on the farm bill, a major piece of legislation that impacts all aspects of the economy. Surely it deserves a full and open debate before its final passage.

Instead, the majority is proposing another closed and House rule- breaking process because we have not had time to read it. This will also be their 100th closed rule since taking control in 2011, and allowing just an hour of general debate for each bill and 15 minutes basically on the rule on our side of the House.

If one wonders at the lack of productivity from this Congress, just look at the closed and partisan legislative process pursued by the majority and you will quickly understand.

Madam Speaker, with all of the major issues facing our country, attacking women's health care shows just how extreme--and extremely out of touch--the Washington Republicans are because the Republicans at home don't feel that way.

We should be passing legislation to create jobs, to grow our economy and to level the playing field for working women, not taking the country backwards with bills that attack women's rights.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, for more than three decades, the so-called Hyde Amendment has flatly banned the use of Federal dollars to pay for abortions except in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is endangered. In part, the Hyde Amendment reads, ``None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.''

Despite the Majority's claims to the contrary, today's legislation goes far beyond the definitive language of the Hyde Amendment in an attempt to restrict a woman's reproductive health options under private insurance plans and her ability to spend private dollars on a constitutionally protected right to reproductive health care.

At the heart of this legislative attack is the extremely broad and vague language included in today's bill that redefines the definition of ``federal funding.'' Under this legislation, the definition of Federal funding would be expanded to include the benefit of a tax expenditure. While this terminology may seem complex, its consequences are quite simple.

If this bill becomes law, a woman purchasing health insurance that includes abortion coverage will be denied a premium tax credit that helps make coverage affordable in the first place. Facing such a circumstance, she would be financially incentivized to buy a cheaper health insurance plan that does not include abortion services. As more women give up health insurance plans with abortion coverage, health insurance companies will stop offering such plans. Very quickly, it will become both prohibitively expensive and difficult to purchase abortion coverage in a health insurance plan.

In so doing, this bill takes particular aim at the reproductive rights of poor women. Women who are struggling to get by rely almost exclusively upon insurance premium subsidies to reduce the cost of health care while more affluent women can often access additional benefits such as Flexible Spending Accounts to reduce their health care costs. While insurance premium subsidies are eliminated under today's bill Flexible Spending Accounts are left untouched.

We should not be restricting either of these tax benefits that serve America's women, but it is particularly immoral for the Majority to be targeting the most vulnerable women among us.

Sadly, targeting the reproductive health care of poor women is nothing new for the Republican Party. As far back as the 1970's Henry Hyde infamously stated ``I would certainly like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion: a rich woman, a middle class woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the [Medicaid] bill,'' he continued--which as we know only affects low- income women and families.

In addition to taking a tax benefit away from those struggling to get by, today's bill would raise taxes on small businesses in another attempt to make force small businesses to drop insurance coverage. Under this legislation, small businesses that offer health insurance plans that include abortion coverage would be ineligible for the Small Business Tax Credit. Currently, 87 percent of all employer-sponsored insurance plans include coverage for abortion, and the Small Business Tax Credit can be worth 35-50% of the cost of a small business' premiums. Taking away this tax credit would be a major tax INCREASE on small businesses for simply keeping the same insurance coverage that they already have.

In short, today's legislation is an attempt to rewrite our Nation's laws so that it is financially impossible for a woman to access a private health insurance plan that provides abortion coverage. And it is yet another attack on women's rights from a Majority that seems to be struggling to understand the most fundamental aspects of an issue important to America's women.

Indeed, when it comes to the issue of reproductive rights, one member of the Majority has declared that ``the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.'' Another member of the Majority has declared that today's legislation is good for reducing unemployment, because ``having new children brought into the world is not harmful to job creation. It very much promotes job creation for all the care and services and so on that need to be provided by a lot of people to raise children.''

Quotes such as these make it clear how such extreme--and extremely misguided--legislation has made it to the floor today. They also remind us why it is so important that the Majority allows an open and transparent legislative process so that such dangerous legislation never sees the light of day.

Unfortunately, it is under a closed legislative process that variations of this legislation have been introduced and pushed through the House of Representatives in recent years. Repeatedly, the Majority has written similar legislation and included provisions that attempted to redefine rape. The Majority, who just weeks ago decried the role of the IRS in Obamacare, has even introduced a variation of this legislation that empowered the IRS to audit any woman who has had an abortion. This in no way should be the responsibility of the IRS and any attempt to impose the IRS in a woman's medical decisions is nothing but an attack on her constitutionally protected rights.

Once again, it is under a closed legislative process--and an abandonment of regular order--that we find ourselves here today considering yet another misguided attempt to restrict women's rights.

In fact, while today's legislation bears the same name, it is not the same bill that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee earlier this month.

Instead, it is an original Rules Committee print that was first made available less than a week ago and includes significant legislative changes, such as the addition of text from two bills that have never received any committee debate, review or mark-up.

Furthermore, the Majority is asking that we consider this new bill under another closed rule. If we do, it will be the 100th closed rule for a Majority that just concluded the most closed session in history.

Madam Speaker, it comes as little surprise that bad legislative process has produced another bad bill.

Over and over again, the Majority has shown no interest in opening up the legislative process and coming to the table to work on commonsense legislation with members from the other side of the aisle. My Democratic colleagues and I believe that we should be voting on bills to create jobs, grow our economy and level the playing field for working women--but we will never be able to do so until the Majority allows us to truly participate in the legislative process.

Finally, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the farm bill conference report that is also brought to the floor by this resolution. Having only received the 900-plus page bill last night Members have had little chance to read the bill. In fact, as my friend Mr. McGovern has noted, even conferees who supposedly negotiated this deal were not given a chance to read it!

But the one policy I know is included in the conference report is a massive, $8.6 billion cut in SNAP, formerly known as ``food stamps.'' Families receiving SNAP benefits already saw a cut in their monthly food budgets of approximately $30 less than three months ago. For some families, this will mean an additional cut of up to $90--a devastating blow for a low-income household.

In closing, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule, so that we can get to work on real solutions for the American people and put an end to the Majority's dangerous attacks on a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose, as well as their disregard for the plight of the poor and those searching for work.

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Kildee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

(Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Congresswoman Clark.

(Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Congresswoman Tsongas.

(Ms. TSONGAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California, Congressman Takano.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New Mexico, Congresswoman Lujan Grisham.

(Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman Johnson.

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Congresswoman Esty.

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Al Green.

(Mr. AL GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Lee.

(Ms. LEE of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Rhode Island, Congressman Cicilline.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas, Congresswoman Jackson Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Maryland, Congressman Van Hollen.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York, Congressman Eliot Engel.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Florida, Congressman Alcee Hastings.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule and give the House a vote on a bill, written by Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Levin, to extend emergency unemployment benefits paid for with savings from the farm bill that, it seems, this House will pass today.

To discuss his bill, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, let me give myself just a half a second to say that, again, we hear how important it is until a child is born, but if it is unemployed later, it is not going to get to eat as long as we have this majority.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who was not able to testify before those 12 men.

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

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democrat leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley.

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

Madam Speaker, from renewing unemployment insurance for more than 1.6 million Americans to growing our economy and rebuilding our middle class, there is an urgent need for Congress to pass legislation that will help the American people. So I urge my colleagues to reject today's rule so that we can finally get to work, I hope, on real solutions to the problems that face our Nation, not wasting more time with another attack on women's constitutionally protected reproductive rights.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to give the House a vote on the bill written by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) to extend emergency unemployment benefits, paid for with the savings from the farm bill that, it seems, this House will pass today or tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, the only thing I really need to say, other than the absolute requirements here, is that we have had a great demonstration in this rule debate on what is going on here.

H.R. 7, written by men, discussed before a subcommittee of 12 men and then voted on by the main committee, composed mostly of men, who carried the debate, was brought here today; and yet, with the exception of the manager of the bill, not a single woman on the other side came to speak on this bill.

On our side, we had diversity. We had women. We had men getting up and talking about actually complying with the Constitution. And on the other side, we had, once again, men telling women what they are allowed to do.

We are so far past that. When we finally got the right to vote, we said, Let's put all this behind us, certainly in the House of Representatives, the people's House. Can't you understand the difference here in the people's House, that the people represent the diversity of the faces of America, and all the men over there who seem to have devoted their lives to making sure that women do what they expect them to do and what they are told to do and trying to pass laws to require that. I think it was one of the most telling debates that I have ever seen, and I hope that it will not go unnoticed by the American people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I come to the floor to discuss a bill addressed only to my district, the District of Columbia, which will come to a hearing next Thursday in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, chaired by Chairman Trent Franks.

In point of fact, over the last month, there have been two such bills introduced in this House, bills that can only fairly be characterized as abuse of power. They are both directed against only one jurisdiction--my own district.

H.R. 7 would appear to be a Federal matter. That bill would make permanent the Hyde amendment, which annually passes this House every year, barring the use of Federal funds for abortion. Wherever you stand on abortion, at the very least, that is a Federal matter. In the very same bill however is an outrageous abuse. The bill seeks to do the same for the District of Columbia, barring permanently the use of local funds--funds raised by local taxpayers--for abortions for low-income women. Local funds are similarly used for abortions for low income districts in districts across the United States because, after all, they are local funds. But H.R. 7 redefines the Nation's Capital which was given home rule in 1973, as a free-standing jurisdiction--instead of a Federal agency for purposes of abortion.

Imagine having your district defined as a Federal agency so that the Congress can make ideological points by overturning local legislation at will. Yep, this is still America. That bill is H.R. 946. As to the District of Columbia, it's simply an expanded way to interfere with the business of a local jurisdiction.

I must say that I think that H.R. 7 and H.R. 1797 I will discuss shortly do point to the bankruptcy of the Republican agenda in the 113th Congress essentially does what is done anyway every year with respect to abortion. It hasn't come to the floor yet.

It hasn't come to the floor yet, and indeed very few bills have come to the

floor. Sometimes the House has a rule one day and the bill the next day when there was plenty of time on both days because the Republican House doesn't have any agenda and it has to stretch out what few bills it has to make it look like there's something that the House is doing. That's how the House is doing its business.

Now the House is into my business, however, when it deals with the district I represent, a district of 600,000 American citizens who you can bet your life are going to demand and always demand to be treated as full American citizens because that is exactly who we are. We will never accept overriding our rights--our local rights and our constitutional rights--in order to satisfy the agenda of this Member of Congress or that Member of Congress who is making a point for special interest groups or for others.

The bill that I want to primarily discuss, H.R. 1797, goes beyond the usual way in which the Congress--or at least the Republican Congress-- seeks to interfere with the rights of the people of the District of Columbia. What they do generally is to take advantage of the fact that the district's own local taxpayer-raised funds have to come here essentially to be checked off and signed off, and Congress don't ever look at the budget. How could they? They don't know anything about a local jurisdiction's budget. But they do use the local budget to attach their own ideological stripes, and the usual one has to do with abortion.

H.R. 1797 uses the District of Columbia in yet a new way with a new abuse because it goes beyond the low-income women for whom the district cannot spend its own local funds. Instead, H.R. 1797 goes after every woman in the District of Columbia because that bill essentially would make all abortions in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks illegal.

Don't talk about the obvious constitutional issue. I'll get to that in a minute.

H.R. 1797 seeks to regulate pregnancy and abortion--a local matter-- with respect to only one jurisdiction, and it's a matter that usually involves a matter of principle. People who are ``pro-life,'' as they call themselves, have my respect, but this circumstance is the only example where I have seen them try to apply the principle only to one jurisdiction, leaving everybody else in the United States exempt from the so-called ``principle.'' If abortion should be denied after 20 weeks, as a matter of principle, then surely that principle should apply throughout the United States. There's a reason why it doesn't, and I will get to that.

First, I want to thank Chairman Trent Franks for permitting me the courtesy of testifying next Thursday at the hearing of H.R. 1797 that affects only my district. He had two bills last year. This bill is a redux of the same bill that came to the floor and was defeated last year, and he also had another to permanently disallow local funds to be used to fund abortions for poor women in the District. On both of those bills, I was denied the right and the courtesy of testifying, although traditionally granted to Members, even though bills don't usually involve only one jurisdiction.

This bill is of great concern not only to me, but there's going to be a press conference next week indicating that the bill is viewed by women all over the United States as, of course, a vehicle to eliminate the reproductive rights of women across the country. The bill is fatally flawed in several obvious ways.

First, there is discriminatory treatment of the District of Columbia to its residents by banning abortions after 20 weeks only in the District of Columbia, as I've indicated. If barring abortion is a principle, it's a principle that as a matter of principle, would apply nationwide. But it's not applied nationwide in H.R. 1797 because the District is the one jurisdiction over which Congress has a modicum of control. Until the District becomes a State, the Congress can step in. But, of course, the Home Rule Act contemplates that in our democracy Congress would never step in, unless there was an abuse of Federal authority by the District of Columbia. This would be, on the contrary, an abuse of Federal power by the Congress of the United States were this bill to pass.

The bill discriminates against the District by picking out the District among all the districts in the United States for unequal treatment. H.R. 1797 violates unabashedly Roe v. Wade, which allows abortion until viability as determined by a physician. Roe and all of its cases, all of the precedents that follow it, make it clear that viability cannot be determined by statute.

Roe v. Wade, 40 years ago, guaranteed the right of an abortion as a constitutional right. So you can expect that this is a matter that would be ultimately challenged. But the reason that the District is the vehicle used here is that the special interests obviously want a Federal imprimatur and don't have the guts to go get it by bringing a bill to the House floor that would apply to everybody. So they choose the bullying way, the easy way. You have a Federal imprimatur, if you can get the Congress to vote with respect to one jurisdiction because the Congress is Federal. Of course, the bill violates the Home Rule Act itself because while the Home Rule Act acknowledges the ultimate jurisdiction of the Congress, it clearly, in its terms, contemplates that the legislative power will go to the Council of the District of Columbia. There is no principled reason here to violate the local jurisdiction's local authority.

Here we have gone from the usual attack on low-income women by denying the city its authority to spend its own taxpayer-raised funds as it sees fit, to an attack on every woman of childbearing age, every such family in the District of Columbia.

The bill goes further. It criminalizes abortion by making a physician subject to imprisonment for up to 2 years for abiding by Roe v. Wade and engaging in an abortion.

Then the bill has a truly bizarre section which gives new meaning to the word ``extreme.'' It allows any current or former health provider, who has ever treated a woman--and it doesn't say when that provider might have treated a woman, perhaps as a child, because it has no limit--but allows any former health provider to obtain an injunction against the abortion. The right to privacy, among others is absent.

This is a new low in extreme provisions that we have seen in the Congress from my Republican colleagues. The very idea of even introducing a bill that would deny the constitutional rights of only one jurisdiction is an outrage in and of itself. Sure, bills are introduced on this floor all the time that are, on their face, unconstitutional, but it is bullying to pick out one jurisdiction because you don't have the courage to come forward with a national law, a national bill. By no means, however, do we believe a national bill is appropriate.

This bill has also been introduced on the other side by Senator Mike Lee of Utah. Apparently someone asked him if there is a 20-week abortion bill in Utah or if Congress might introduce one for Utah. He was quick to say, no, they don't have such a bill in Utah, and he would oppose it if the Congress tried to enact one that applied to Utah. He would be for only if Utah itself enacted the bill. So here we have a Tea Party Republican in the Senate who applies his Tea Party principles against federal intervention except when it comes to the District of Columbia.

Anybody who thinks that we're going to stand here and let that happen without, in fact, protesting it and rallying Americans who believe in fairness do not know us very well. We refuse to be a vehicle for the extreme views or pet projects of some Republicans. They have their own outlets. They have the right to come to this floor and offer bills. They have the right to speak on this floor in any way they choose. We will not be a prop for those views.

The Republicans are the supposedly small government Tea Party party who are now using the big foot Federal Government against a single jurisdiction that doesn't have a vote on this floor, that could not vote for or against H.R. 1797 if it came to this floor. What kind of courage is that? It's a bully's path to making ideological points. If you have an ideological point, make it; don't use my district to do so.

The extreme right-wing of the Republican Party doesn't even want the Federal Government in what the Federal Government has always done, but now they've got the Federal Government in

something that even they say the Federal Government should never be doing--interfering with the local rights of people to govern themselves locally.

This is a country in which there are wide differences on many subjects, perhaps none more so than the right to reproductive choice, but it is also a country that respects one another in the various States and localities where we live and do not try to reach over and somehow compel people in one jurisdiction to do as people in another jurisdiction do. That's the difference between this country, a Federal republic, and other countries, and it is a principle we mean to hold this Congress to.

There is the claim that, well, the District doesn't do enough restricting of abortion, so that's why we simply have to step in here. On the contrary, there are nine States that do not restrict abortions any more than the District does, and the District abides by Roe v. Wade. Yet this bill is directed against only one jurisdiction. Of course I take exception to the bill itself, but I take particular exception against being bullied by people outside my jurisdiction in order to satisfy their own personal philosophical concerns.

I can tell you this much: the notion that you can use the District and abuse its women on reproductive choice and nobody else will care should have been put to rest last year. The kickoff of the Republican attack on reproductive rights was, in fact, this bill which went to the floor and failed, but Republicans didn't stop there. Going back to abortion was not enough. They went all the way back to contraception and, amazingly, made contraception a campaign issue in the last election. Well, I hope they have learned their lesson, because women put all of this together and showed what they thought about it in the Presidential election.

I am very grateful to women all over the country for how they responded specifically to this very bill, this 20-week abortion bill that applied only to the District of Columbia. They were not fooled for a moment. Women across the United States wrote thousands of emails and letters indicating that they understood this bill, the very same bill that was defeated last year, to be a vehicle for inroads into the reproductive rights of women across the United States. Far from ignoring it because, after all, it was only 600,000 D.C. residents. The women may live in California or Wyoming--we saw them writing from their States in large numbers, making it clear that they saw it for what it was, that special interest groups were going from State to State to pass anti-choice bills. They begin at personhood where there is absolutely no right to abortion or contraception because, in their view, life begins at conception. And then some have 6-week bills and there are other 20-week bills. They are all over the map. And by the way, they are quite divided because they are all over the map.

They have settled on 20-week abortion, however, for H.R. 1797, and we mean to do for this bill what we did last year--to turn it back, to make women all over the country understand it for what it is, just as they did last year, to see that the only way to resist these attacks is to be as persistent as our opponents are in coming back to attack women using the women of the District of Columbia.

The women of my district are the chosen vehicle, but the targets are a national campaign against the reproductive rights of women in the Nation. They can't come to the floor, or they won't, with a broadside attack on the reproductive rights of women. So they do the cowardly thing and come against the District of Columbia because of the technical jurisdiction that, of course I can see the Congress has, but no principled Congress would ever use its federal power against a local jurisdiction.

Therefore I come to the floor this afternoon to put all on notice that you can come as many times as you want and as many ways as you want, but I represent 600,000 taxpaying Americans, and they insist that they are equal to Americans everywhere else.

For 100 years they did not have any rights. They didn't have the right to vote for President. They didn't have the right for a local government. For 100 years they were ruled by three commissioners appointed by the President.

During the civil rights era, the Congress became ashamed of having a local jurisdiction that was its Nation's Capital, that did not have the same rights as other people in the United States, not even a local government, a mayor or a city council who could enact legislation affecting the local population, although this population had been paying Federal income taxes ever since our country has been collecting income taxes. And our residents have fought and died in every war our country has ever fought, including the war that created the United States of America.

American citizens in a jurisdiction as old and historic as the Nation's Capital is, will not have our citizenship rights taken away lightly, and we will not be used and abused by Members of this Congress, whatever their party.

Our Union is not perfect, but it strives to be. It can become perfect only when it hears about its imperfections. There is no imperfection greater than having Members of Congress focus on one jurisdiction that does not have the same ability to defend itself as every other jurisdiction.

It is hard enough to see Members of Congress come down and vote on the District's local appropriation, which they had nothing to do with collecting, but which is still a part of what is allowed in the Congress. But it is disgraceful to see one issue picked out and one jurisdiction alone targeted.

If you feel strongly about your issue, step up and air your issue in the way this House allows. And I ask that whatever the Congress does, that it ask itself when it deals with the District of Columbia, is the action consistent with the principles that you profess on this floor time and again?

I ask reconsideration of any such attempts in the future. There is no possible way that any self-respecting jurisdiction would accept discriminatory treatment.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I put the Congress on notice, we will never--we do not accept the discriminatory treatment in the Franks bill, H.R. 1797 or in the bill that I discussed previously, H.R. 7, to bar abortions in Federal legislation permanently, which somehow tucks the District into a bill on federal funds.

We do not accept and never will accept second-class treatment by the Congress of the United States. We will always protest it, and we will always find a way to find the solid ground that American citizens must stand on to protect their rights.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 465 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.

Madam Speaker, the question before the House is should the House now consider H. Res. 465. This point of order, Madam Speaker, is a dilatory tactic. I will remind the gentleman that each bill under this rule will be separately considered and debatable on the House floor.

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to 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. 465? This point of order,

Madam Speaker, is a dilatory tactic. None of the provisions contained in the underlying measures meet the definition of an earmark under the rule.

The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary certified that H.R. 7 contains no congressional earmarks by including the following earmark statement in the report accompanying this bill, which was filed on January 23, 2014:

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, H.R. 7 does not contain any

congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited

tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f) or 9(g) of

rule XXI.

The following was included in the Joint Explanatory Statement for the farm bill:

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives and rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the

Senate, neither this conference report nor the accompanying

joint statement of managers contains any congressional

earmarks, congressionally directed spending items, limited

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits, as defined in such

rules.

I also remind the gentleman that this conference agreement is a bipartisan and bicameral measure. Nine of the 10 Democrat conferees from the Agriculture Committee have signed the conference report. The conference report was made available to all Members and the public yesterday, in full compliance of the 3-day availability rule.

In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 465 provides for a closed rule allowing for consideration of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and provides for separate consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, under a standard conference report rule.

Madam Speaker, since 1976, the Hyde amendment--which prohibits the Federal funding of abortions--has been included in relevant appropriations bills. Each year it has been consistently renewed and supported by congressional majorities and Presidents of both parties.

NARAL, an abortion advocacy group, has suggested that prohibiting public funds for abortion reduces abortion rates by roughly 50 percent. That means that half of the women who would have otherwise had a publicly funded abortion end up carrying their babies to term.

In 1993, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Hyde amendment prevented as many as 675,000 abortions every single year. This means that millions of Americans are alive today because of the Hyde amendment. After 38 years, it is time for this life-saving amendment to become permanent law.

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, a myriad of long-established laws, including the Hyde amendment, created a mostly uniform policy that Federal programs did not pay for abortion or subsidize health plans that included coverage of abortion, with only narrow exceptions.

Unfortunately, ObamaCare destroyed that longstanding policy, bypassing the Hyde amendment restriction and paving the way for publicly funded abortions. The President's health care law authorized massive public subsidies to assist millions of Americans to purchase private health plans that will cover abortion on demand. In other words, hard-earned taxpayer dollars are now being used to pay for elective abortions. This is simply unacceptable.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 will codify the principles of the Hyde amendment on a permanent, government-wide basis, which means it will apply longstanding Federal health programs such as Medicaid, SCHIP, and Federal Employees Health Benefits, as well as to new programs created by ObamaCare. H.R. 7 prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortions. It does so by prohibiting all Federal funding for abortion; prohibiting Federal subsidies for ACA health care plans that include coverage for abortion; prohibiting the use of Federal facilities for abortion; and prohibiting Federal employees from performing abortions.

This bill applies to the Federal funding of abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger. This commonsense measure, which restores a longstanding bipartisan agreement, protects the unborn and prevents taxpayers from being forced to fund thousands of abortions. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for life by voting in favor of this rule and H.R. 7.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Chair to reiterate her statement made just a few minutes ago about the extent of the remarks that may be made.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle and every American watching at home that normal unemployment benefits remain in effect for all Americans in need. What has expired is the additional emergency unemployment compensation that goes above and beyond the normal compensation. This emergency compensation was put in place during the economic downturn and was always intended to be temporary. In fact, we have been told that the recession is over and that it has been over for a long time. Republicans want to help create jobs, and we call on the Senate to act on the bills we have sent them, and we will do just that.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that our colleagues are doing all that they can to portray this bill as an attack on women's rights. It is not that at all. I appreciate all of my colleagues who have spoken so eloquently on our side of the aisle about what this bill truly is.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Nunnelee).

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

I will say it again. We are not attacking women's health care with this rule and this legislation.

H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, codifies many longstanding pro-life protections that have been passed under both Republican- and Democrat-controlled Congresses.

The majority of taxpayers oppose Federal funding for abortion, as demonstrated in poll after poll. A recent Marist poll showed that 58 percent of respondents oppose or strongly oppose using any taxpayer dollars for abortions.

During the ObamaCare debate, a 2010 Zogby/O'Leary poll found that 76 percent of Americans said that Federal funds should never pay for an abortion or should pay only to save the life of the mother.

A January 2010 Quinnipiac University poll showed 67 percent of respondents opposed Federal funding of abortion.

An April 2011 CNN poll showed that 61 percent of respondents opposed public funding for abortion.

A November 2009 Washington Post poll showed 61 percent of respondents opposed government subsidies for health insurance that includes abortion.

A September 2009 International Communications Research poll showed that 67 percent of respondents opposed any measure that would ``require people to pay for abortion coverage with their Federal taxes.''

Madam Speaker, it is clear. The American people do not want the government spending their hard-earned tax dollars to destroy innocent human life. Period.

Like most taxpayers, employers also prefer plans that preclude abortion coverage. According to the insurance industry's trade association:

Most insurers offer plans that include abortion coverage,

but most employers choose not to offer it as a part of their

benefits package.

Even Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has voted numerous times to prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion in the District of Columbia. President Obama voted against taxpayer funding of abortion in the District of Columbia twice when he was in the Senate, and since being elected President he has signed appropriations legislation into law that prohibits this funding.

As you can see, Madam Speaker, opposition to taxpayer funding for abortion is bipartisan, bicameral, and supported by a majority of the American people. It is time to restore the status quo on government funding of abortion and make this widely supported policy permanent across the Federal Government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and H.R. 7.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the author of H.R. 7.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the passage of H.R. 7 will be welcome news for the majority of Americans who do not want their tax dollars paying for the grisly business of abortion. This bill, which is cosponsored by 165 House Members and a quarter of the Senate, will make existing policies like the Hyde amendment permanent and will rid ObamaCare of its massive expansion of public funding for abortion insurance plans.

The President repeatedly assured Americans that ObamaCare would ``maintain current Hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extend those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges.'' That promise didn't pan out, like so many other promises he made. It now joins, ``If you like your plan, you can keep it'' in President Obama's panoply of broken promises.

Madam Speaker, last week hundreds of thousands of Americans came to Washington, D.C., braved the cold, and marched for life. Participants hailed from all 50 States, various religions, and all different walks of life. The one thing they had in common was a shared dedication to protecting the unborn.

The March for Life gives a voice to the voiceless and sends a powerful message to Representatives of the people assembled here in Congress. It is heartening that so many Americans of different backgrounds are willing to take a stand for life.

This is not a partisan issue, and this is not a partisan bill. H.R. 7 reflects the bipartisan, bicameral agreement that our government should not be in the business of subsidizing abortions. This is not a radical idea, Madam Speaker. It is a commonsense proposal that codifies a longstanding practice. Therefore, I again urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and H.R. 7.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I am going to say it again, this bill is not an attack on women or an attack on women's rights.

I think it is wonderful that we had so many men here today speaking on behalf of the unborn. Life is the most fundamental of all rights, Madam Speaker. It is sacred and God-given. But millions of babies have been robbed of that right in this, the freest country in the world. This is a tragedy beyond words and a betrayal of what we, as a Nation, stand for.

Before liberty, equality, free speech, freedom of conscience, and the pursuit of happiness and justice for all, there has to be life. And yet, for millions of aborted infants, many pain-capable and many discriminated against because of gender or disability, life is exactly what they have been denied. And an affront to life for some is an affront to life for every one of us. That is the message we want to get across today.

One day, we hope it will be different. We hope life will cease to be valued on a sliding scale. We hope the era of elective abortions, ushered in by an unelected Court, would be closed and collectively deemed one of the darkest chapters in American history. But until that day, it remains a solemn duty for all of us to stand up for life.

Regardless of the length of this journey, we will continue to speak for those who cannot. And we will continue to pray to the One who can change the hearts of those in desperation and those in power who equally hold the lives of the innocent in their hands.

Madam Speaker, the commonsense measure before us restores an important longstanding bipartisan agreement that protects the unborn and prevents taxpayers from being forced to finance thousands of elective abortions. It reflects the will of the American people and is the product of what has historically been a bipartisan, bicameral consensus in Congress. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and H.R. 7.

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

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against House Resolution 465 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution--in waiving all points of order against consideration of both H.R. 7, the antiabortion bill, and the conference report on H.R. 2642, the farm bill--waives section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, thereby causing a violation of section 426(a).

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me just say that it is outrageous, absolutely outrageous, that the Republican leadership has combined a major piece of antiabortion legislation with the farm bill conference report into one single rule, restricting our ability to debate both of these important issues.

There is an $8.6 billion cut to SNAP in this conference report, a cut that will only affect poor families, primarily the elderly and the disabled. Besides being cruel and heartless, this cut is also an unfunded mandate. If States, cities, or towns want to prevent hunger from getting worse, they will have to spend more money out of their own budgets.

Now, I know my Republican friends are in a big hurry to go off to their issues retreat at some luxurious resort, but maybe we could have found another hour somewhere.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to serve on the Agriculture Committee. I was honored to serve on the conference committee for the farm bill. I want to thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking

Member Peterson and all of my colleagues for their hard work.

I want a farm bill. I want to support the farm bill conference. But from the beginning of this process, I made my position very clear that I will not vote for a farm bill that makes hunger worse in America. And this farm bill fails that basic test. If this bill passes, hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Americans will have less to eat, period.

Now, some people will say, well, an $8 billion cut in SNAP is better than what the House Republicans wanted to do. That is a strange argument, Madam Speaker. It is like saying thank goodness the burglar only took the silver, because he could have taken the jewelry, too.

The fact of the matter is that any cut to SNAP will be piled on top of the cut that already went into effect last fall. And any cut to SNAP will result in more Americans going hungry. And any cut in SNAP will increase the financial burdens on State and local governments.

There are those, Madam Speaker, who claim that the Heat and Eat program is some sort of a loophole. It isn't. It is a policy decision. It is a way for States to help some of our neighbors who are struggling through very difficult times. But even if this is a loophole, I ask my friends, of all the loopholes in Federal law, of all of the special interest giveaways, this is the one you are going to target? This is the one that is in your crosshairs, a program that helps poor people get enough food to eat? My goodness.

There are those who say that States and local governments or food banks or food pantries should pick up the slack. Have any of those people actually ever been to a food bank? Have they ever talked to a director of a food pantry? Because they are already at capacity, Madam Speaker. They can't meet the needs of the clients that they already have.

My Republican friends have made their priorities very clear. They want to dismantle the social safety net. They want to get the Federal Government out of the business of helping people get enough to eat.

But I also want to say that I am disappointed, Madam Speaker, in the people in my own party, here in the Congress and in the White House, who are going along with this.

Tonight, the President of the United States will stand in this Chamber and deliver the State of the Union; and when he talks about income inequality and helping people get into the middle class, all of us Democrats--and I hope some Republicans--will stand up and cheer. But before that happens, we have an opportunity to put our votes where our cheers are; we have a chance to match our actions with our rhetoric. And the way to do that is to vote ``no'' on this conference report.

So I say to my fellow Democrats, if cutting SNAP or other programs that help poor people is the price of admission to get anything done, any piece of major legislation passed, then we have strayed very, very far from our principles. Madam Speaker, again, I want to remind my colleagues that this is an unfunded mandate because there will be an increased burden on States, cities and towns to deal with this issue of hunger.

By the way, Madam Speaker, when people are hungry, when kids are hungry, they don't learn in school. When people are hungry, they end up going to the emergency room more often. When children are hungry, when they get a common cold, they end up staying in the hospital for a period of time. That all costs us a great deal in terms of not only Federal money but State and local money. So, in my opinion, this is an unfunded mandate, and this is a burden on the States.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield the remaining time to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against House Resolution 465 under clause 9(c) of rule XXI because the resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against H.R. 7, the abortion bill, and the conference report on H.R. 2642, the farm bill.

Madam Speaker, the conference report on the farm bill was made public at around 7:30 last night. With nearly 1,000 pages dumped on us at the last minute, we know that no one has had a chance to read the entire thing. I'm a conferee, and even I had an extra few hours to try to digest this monstrosity of a bill, but who knows what is in this bill? That is why I'm raising this earmarks point of order.

As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, one of the things that is most troubling to me and a number of my colleagues, again, is this attack on poor people and is this attack on SNAP, a program that does nothing more than provide food to people.

Madam Speaker, I would like to include for the Record a letter that was addressed to Congress from the mayors of Baton Rouge, Boston, Dallas, the District of Columbia, Gary, Hartford, Ithaca, Los Angeles, Madison, Memphis, New York, Providence, Raleigh, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Tucson urging us in both the House and the Senate to reject these SNAP cuts. These mayors have made it very clear that it would have an adverse impact on the people that they represent. They have stressed in this letter the importance of SNAP to help people to be able to put food on the table for their children.

I also would like to reference a statement from the Food Research and Action Center, otherwise known as FRAC. They are urging us to vote against this conference committee report if these SNAP cuts remain in the bill. They have said that SNAP is essential to the nutrition, the health and the well-being of 47 million Americans each month, but every participant suffered a significant cut in benefits beginning last November 1.

As the gentlelady from Connecticut made mention of, on November 1, an $11 billion cut in SNAP went into effect. All 47 million beneficiaries received a cut. Food prices didn't go down, but their benefit went down, and now we are going to pile on. There are some who say, well, it doesn't affect all 47 million. It is only going to be about 1 million or so people that will be adversely impacted, but those people that will be adversely impacted stand a great deal to lose. The November 1 cut for the average family of three resulted in a $31 a month benefit cut. You add this on top of it, and it is another $80 to $90. So that family of three will receive about $120 to $130 less per month.

What are they going to do? Even before these cuts went into effect, they were going to food banks, they were going to charities looking for help because their benefit was so meager to begin with. What are they supposed to do? I think in this House of Representatives, I don't care what your political party or ideology is, it should never, ever, ever be acceptable that anybody in this country--the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world--should go hungry.

The fact that we are moving forward with the farm bill--a deal that contains this $8.6 billion in cuts--I think is outrageous. I'm all for a deal. I want a farm bill. I'm willing to swallow a lot of things in this bill that I don't like, but the price of doing that should not be to increase hunger and poverty in this country, and that is what this bill does.

We talk about deals. Behind these deals are real people. They are our neighbors. They are in every community. There is not a congressional district in our country that is hunger free. These people are everywhere. We have an obligation to not turn our backs on them. SNAP is one of the most efficiently run Federal programs with one of the lowest error rates.

This is important. SNAP in and of itself is not going to solve the problem of hunger or poverty. The bottom line is by cutting it the way we are doing, we are making things worse for people. I stood on the floor today, and I read the descriptions of individuals in Massachusetts who, if this farm bill passes, will see a significant cut in their benefit, and their question to me is, what do I do? Where do I go? Tell me how to put food on the table for my kids. Tell me how I'm going to survive.

We should not be making the lives of people who are suffering more miserable. That is not our job.

I will also insert for the Record the entire Food Research and Action Center statement.

Madam Speaker, in Massachusetts alone there will be 125,000 SNAP households that could suffer up to a $70 to $80 a month cut in SNAP benefit if this farm bill goes through as it is. There is no reason in the world that we should be cutting this program. This is not an ATM machine to pay for big farm subsidies. This is not an ATM machine to make up for the fraud, the waste and the abuse in the crop insurance program.

Again, I will repeat to my colleagues, tonight we are going to hear the President talk about income inequality, and my criticism here, it is a bipartisan criticism. I'm critical of the Republicans for the cruel cuts that were proposed in the original farm bill--up to $40 billion--and I'm frustrated that there are people in my own party, including in this White House, who don't believe this is worth a fight. Well, this is worth a fight. If this is not worth a fight, I don't know what the hell we are here for. If making sure people in this country don't go hungry is not a priority, then I don't know what we are doing here.

We can explain this away, we can rationalize it and justify it. I have heard all the talking points. My favorite is that nobody will actually lose their benefit.

What that neglects to tell you is that your benefit will be cut down to almost nothing. Yes, they will still get a little benefit, but it might be $15 a month instead of $115 a month. I mean, is that the best we can do, on both sides of the aisle? This never used to be a partisan issue. This never used to be a polarizing issue, and now all of a sudden it has become one. Again, I plea with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's come together and get a farm bill done, but not at this price.

And I urge the White House to stand up and fight alongside of us on this. They should be taking a greater leadership role on this. It is not enough to just talk about income inequality; you have to fight for it, too.

Mayors of Baton Rouge, Boston, Dallas, District of

Columbia, Gary, Hartford, Ithaca, Los Angeles, Madison,

Memphis, New York, Providence, Raleigh, Sacramento,

Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and

Tucson,

January 27, 2014.

Hon. Debbie Stabenow,

Chair, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and

Forestry, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Frank D. Lucas,

Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Thad Cochran,

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition

and Forestry, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington,

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I thank him for his dedication and his passion on this issue that people in the United States of America should not go hungry.

I rise in support of my colleague's point of order. This farm bill contains cuts to the food stamp program that will transfer the responsibility to States and cities to provide food to their families. May I remind the Members of this body that food stamps--our Nation's most important anti-hunger program--was just cut 2 months ago in November--in November.

Because of the recent expiration of the Recovery Act provisions, food stamps have already been cut by $5 billion for next year and $11 billion is the cut over 3 years. What does it mean? It means that a family of four lost $36--or 16 meals--a month in support. That is already the difference between health and hunger.

Now the savage cuts in this farm bill would push Americans already living on the edge that much closer to the brink. Because of the $8.5 billion in cuts here, 850,000 households--translates into 1.7 million Americans--will lose an average of $90 a month or 66 more meals a month. Low-income seniors, working poor with families, individuals with disabilities and veterans would be particularly impacted by these cruel cuts.

Perhaps some Members have forgotten. That is because we eat well. That is because we eat well every day. Members have forgotten hunger is an abomination. We are talking about men and women experiencing real physical trauma, children who cannot concentrate in school because all they can think about is food, and seniors are forced to decide in what has been a polar vortex, a virulent winter season, whether or not they will go hungry or be cold.

This is a problem all across the land. In my Connecticut district, nearly one in seven households are not sure they can afford enough food to feed their families. In Mississippi, 24.5 percent suffer food hardship. In West Virginia and Kentucky, 22 percent. In Ohio, nearly 20 percent, and in California, just over 19 percent.

The continued existence of hunger in America is a disgrace. That is why in the past there has been a strong tradition of bipartisanship on fighting hunger and supporting nutrition. This farm bill flies in the face of that tradition. It takes food from the poor to pay for crop subsidies for the rich.

Food stamps have one of the lowest error rates of any government program. It is a powerful and positive impact on economic growth because they get resources into the hands of families who are going to spend them right away. The research shows that for every $5 of Federal food stamp benefits, it generates nearly twice that in economic activity.

Children's Health Watch, those researchers found that after collecting 14 years of data on over 20,000 low-income families that when families experienced a loss or reduction in food stamp benefits, they are more likely to be food insecure, to be in poor health, and their children experience intensified developmental delays relative to their peers.

Most importantly, food stamps are the right thing to do. It is the job of a good government to help vulnerable families to get back on their feet, and cutting food stamps will cause more hunger and health problems for Americans. In the words of Harry Truman:

Nothing is more important in our national life than the

welfare of our children, and proper nourishment comes first

in attaining this welfare.

This bill--this bill--flies in the face of that. It will cut $8.5 billion. You couple that with the cuts that have already been made in the economic recovery program, and that is almost $20 billion in a cut to the food stamp program. Some of my colleagues will say, well, we only did 8\1/2\ billion in the farm bill. Let me just tell you: it may come from two sources, but the constituency is the same.

Who are we as a nation? Where are our values? If we can provide crop subsidies for the richest farmers in this Nation and tell them that they can make $900,000 a year before they will not be able to get a subsidy, or 26 individuals who get a premium subsidy for crop insurance of at least $1 million a year--those folks are eating, they are high on the hog, they got three squares a day. When we provide $1.40--it is $1.40 per meal for food stamp beneficiaries--the people at the top end don't have an income cap. They don't have any asset test, and that is not true for food stamp recipients. We prescribe who can

receive them. There are income limitations and asset limitations. Who are we as a nation? What are we about? Let's not take food out of the mouths of families and their children.

Madam Speaker, I am proud once again to join my colleague. I, too, want a farm bill. In fact, I had the honor of helping to negotiate the 2008 farm bill, the nutrition portion of it, where we maintained that historic coalition between the safety net for agriculture and the safety net for nutrition.

I think it is almost unbelievable that we got a thousand-page bill, and I just want to say to the American public here that they should ask Members of Congress whether or not they have read the bill. We went over and over this with regard to the health care bill. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle kept asking us if we have read the bill. No one has really read this bill. There were four people who negotiated this work. There could well be significant earmarks in this effort.

Let me point out the reverse Robin Hood legislation here. It steals food from the poor to help pay for handouts to wealthy agribusiness. Let me just give a couple of examples. In violation of the congressional rule that provisions passed by both bodies should not be changed, the conference, four people, more than doubled the annual primary payments from $50,000 to $125,000, or $250,000 a couple. They reopened the loophole that was closed in the House and in the Senate that allows wealthy farmers to collect far more than the nominal payment limit: $50,000. They raised it to $125,000 for an individual; to a couple, $250,000. House and Senate on a bipartisan basis closed the loophole.

This allows payments to be collected by multiple people on the farm. What we have today is eight people can collect a $125,000 payment, leading to a million-dollar subsidy for a farm. Seven of those eight people never have to put their foot on the farm. It is called padding the payroll. ``Farmers,'' they don't have to undergo any income means testing to receive a subsidy.

The Durbin-Coburn amendment in the Senate would reduce the level of Federal premium support for crop insurance participants with an adjusted gross income of $750,000. The conference report--four people-- determined that they would make that cap at $900,000. Again, the wealthiest people in the Nation.

Let me tell you about crop insurance. I don't know that the American public knows that the Federal Government, you, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, you pick up 60 percent of the cost of that crop insurance. That doesn't include administrative fees. There are 26 individuals today who get at least a million dollars in premium subsidy. We can't find out who they are. They could be Members of Congress, because they are protected: 26 individuals. We have almost 50 million people who are on the food stamp program, 16 million of whom are children. And there is no fraud and abuse in this program, the way there is in the crop insurance program; and yet we want to take food out of the mouths of families and children in this Nation. It is the wrong thing to do. This bill should be rejected.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record in support of extending the unemployment insurance benefits for 1.6 million Americans instead of what is a radical Republican assault, a continuous assault, on women's health care rights.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this offensive and overreaching legislation. It endangers women's health and well-being and attempts to effectively ban working women's access to a legal medical procedure.

With a budget passed, and the President delivering the State of the Union tonight, this body has an important opportunity to turn the page and start acting in a bipartisan manner to address the Nation's real problem.

We should be working together to create jobs, encourage economic growth, and ensure steady and rising wages. Instead, this House majority has once again succumbed to their worst ideological impulses at the expense of women's health. Once again, for almost the 50th time now, they are trying to undermine the Affordable Care Act.

The bill claims to end taxpayer funding for abortion. Everyone in this room knows there is no taxpayer funding for abortion, per the Hyde amendment which is enacted every year.

What this bill does is prevents millions of women working for small businesses from using their own private funds to purchase coverage for services from private insurance. It aims to end any private coverage of these services by private insurance companies. Women cannot get the comprehensive coverage that they need in the insurance marketplace.

The same old, same old from this House Republican majority. Oppose this ideological legislation.