No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care.

I thank the gentlewoman for her courage.

Madam Speaker, I stand here today, refusing to surrender on behalf of millions of women of all economic backgrounds, races, ethnicities, and religions who rely upon the Supreme Court of the United States, which, under the Ninth Amendment, has indicated that Roe v. Wade--the right to choose--is a viable and important law of the land. How can we undermine the Constitution in its premise and its articulation?

Today, very quickly, let me say that I know there are millions who are here to disagree with me. I respect that disagreement, but I am saddened that we would take advantage of this day to misrepresent the law and pass a law that will do damage to millions of Americans.

This is the face of Republican women, who, in essence, decided that H.R. 36 was too extreme. Even Republican men said that they could not vote on a bill that caused or asked women to report a rape before they would be able to benefit from an abortion. How sad, in the trauma of rape, that you must require someone to go to the police department before she could get assistance. That bill was pulled. That extreme bill was pulled.

In order not to leave us without dramatics, we come again to do what is hurting millions of women in Texas--where they cannot even get health services because of the laws passed in Texas, which completely shut down good health care clinics that deal in abortion and other women's services for health care--with this dastardly law about requiring those clinics to be within a certain milage of hospitals, with their never having any problem before.

Now we come with another masquerade in H.R. 7, which prohibits Federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage which includes the coverage of abortion, making permanent already existing Federal policies, prohibiting the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by Federal or the District of Columbia health care--again, interfering with the women in the District of Columbia-- and prohibiting individuals from receiving refundable Federal tax credits--individuals interfering with private health insurance.

Madam Speaker, this is a bad bill, and I ask my colleagues to vote against it. It undermines the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise again in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 7, the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,'' and the underlying bill.

I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the American people.

A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating the Rights of Women Act of 2015''!

Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across the aisle should be working with Democrats to build upon the ``Middle- Class Economics'' championed by the Obama Administration that have succeeded in ending the economic meltdown it inherited in 2009 and revived the economy to the point where today we have the highest rate of growth and lowest rate of unemployment since the boom years of the Clinton Administration.

We could and should instead be voting to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour so that people who work hard and play by the rules do not have raise their families in poverty.

A far better use of our time would be to provide help to unemployed job-hunters by making access to community college affordable to every person looking to make a new start in life.

Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for the umpteenth time, we should bring to the floor for a first vote comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder.

Madam Speaker, the one thing we should not be doing is debating irresponsible ``messaging bills'' that abridge the rights of women and have absolutely no chance of overriding a presidential veto.

The version of H.R. 7 before us now is as bad today as it was when the House Republican leadership insisted on bringing it to a vote a year ago.

The other draconian provisions of that terrible bill are retained in H.R. 7, which would:

1. Prohibit federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Thus making permanent existing federal policies.)

2. Prohibit the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government or the District.

3. Apply such prohibitions to District of Columbia funds.

4. Prohibit individuals from receiving a refundable federal tax credit, or any cost-sharing reductions, for purchasing a qualified health plan that includes coverage for abortions.

5. Prohibit small employers from receiving the small-employer health insurance credit provided by the health care law if the health plans or benefits that are purchased provide abortion coverage.

If H.R. 7 were enacted, millions of families and small businesses with private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage would be faced with tax increases, making the cost of health care insurance even more expensive.

Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are able to offer abortion coverage and receive federal offsets for premiums as long as enrollees pay for the abortion coverage from separate, private funds.

If enacted, H.R. 7 would deny federal subsidies or credits to private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage even if that coverage is paid for from private funds.

This would inevitably lead to private health insurance companies dropping abortion coverage leaving millions of women without access to affordable, comprehensive health care.

Currently, 87% of private insurance health care plans offered through employers cover abortion.

If H.R. 7 were to become law, consumer options for private health insurance plans would be unnecessarily restricted and the tax burden on these policy holders would increase significantly.

H.R. 7 would also deny tax credits to small businesses that offer their employees insurance plans that cover abortion, which would have a significant impact on millions of families across the nation who would no longer be able to take advantage of existing tax credits and deductions for the cost of their health care.

For example, small businesses that offer health plans that cover abortions would no longer be eligible for the Small Business Health Tax Credit--potentially worth 35%-50% of the cost of their premiums-- threatening 4 million small businesses.

Self-employed Americans who are able to deduct the cost of their comprehensive health insurance from their taxable income will also be denied similar tax credits and face higher taxes.

H.R. 7 would also undermine the District of Columbia's home rule by restricting its use of funds for abortion care to low-income women.

The Hyde Amendment stipulates that no taxpayer dollars are to be used for abortion care, and has narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and health complications that arise from pregnancy which put the mother's life in danger.

H.R. 7 would restrict women's access to reproductive health care even further by narrowing the already stringent requirements set forth in the Hyde Amendment.

When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the President issued an Executive Order to ``ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services.''

This version of H.R. 7 goes far beyond the safeguards established under the Affordable Care Act, and sets a dangerous precedent for the future of women's reproductive health in this country because it includes two new provisions that were added at the nth hour but have never received a hearing or a mark-up.

These new provisions would (1) ban abortion coverage in multi-state health plans available under the ACA; and (2) mandate that health plans mislead consumers about abortion coverage by requiring all plans in the health-insurance exchanges that include abortion coverage to display that fact prominently in all advertising, marketing materials, or information from the insurer but interestingly, does not require the same disclosure from plans that do not cover abortion.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 would also force health plans to mislead consumers about the law's treatment of abortion.

As a concession to anti-choice lawmakers, the ACA requires insurance plans participating in the new health system to segregate monies used for abortion services from all other funds.

In order to aid in identifying these funds and simplify the process of segregating general premium dollars from those used to cover abortion services, the ACA requires that health plans estimate the cost of abortion coverage at no less than $1 per enrollee per month.

H.R. 7 would require plans covering abortion to misrepresent this practice as an ``abortion surcharge,'' which is to be disclosed and identified as a portion of the consumer's premium.

By describing abortion coverage in this way, H.R. 7 makes it look as though it is an added, extra cost, available only at an additional fee, when in fact it is not.

Taken together, the provisions in H.R. 7 have the effect, and possibly the intent, of arbitrarily infringing women's reproductive freedoms and pose a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances.

Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved viability.

This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22-week point.

There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be able to eat on its own.

H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of Vildri's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vildd than an abortion.

Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family.

These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.

H.R. 7 lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother.

H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability.

While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.

Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979).

The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety.

This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.

The bill before us threatens this hard won right for women and must be defeated.

I urge all members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying bill. H.R. 7 should be pulled off of this floor!

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36, the ``Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.'' In the last Congress, I opposed this irresponsible and reckless legislation.

I opposed the bill, which arbitrarily bans a woman from exercising her constitutionally protect right to choose to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks, last year for the same reasons I do now. This purely partisan and divisive legislation:

1. Unduly burdens a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy and thus puts their lives at risk;

2. Does not contain exceptions for the health of the mother;

3. As introduced and considered in the Judiciary Committee, unfairly targeted the District of Columbia; and

4. Infringes upon women's right to privacy, which is guaranteed and protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Madam Speaker, in 2010, Nebraska passed a law banning abortion care after 20 weeks. Since then 10 more red states--Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Oklahoma--have enacted similar bans. None of these laws has an adequate health exception. Only one provides an exception for cases of rape or incest.

H.R. 36 seeks to take the misguided and mean-spirited policy of these states and make it the law of the land. In so doing, the bill poses a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances. It is these women who receive the 1.5 percent of abortions that occur after 20 weeks.

Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved viability. This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move limbs.

In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22- week point. There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be able to eat on its own. Danielle and her husband decided to terminate the pregnancy but could not because of the Nebraska ban. Danielle had no recourse but to endure the pain and suffering that followed. Eight days later, Danielle gave birth to a daughter, Elizabeth, who died 15 minutes later.

H.R. 36 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion. Because Vikki was able to terminate the pregnancy, she was protected from the immediate and serious medical risks to her health and her ability to have children in the future was preserved.

Madam Speaker, every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family. These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.

That is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the nation's leading medical experts on women's health, strongly opposes 20- week bans, citing the threat these laws pose to women's health.

Madam Speaker, I also strongly oppose H.R. 36 because it lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother. In fact, the majority Republicans rejected an amendment offered by our colleague, Congressman Nadler, which would have added a ``health of the mother'' exception to the bill.

Madam Speaker, this may come as news to some in this body, but each year approximately 25,000 women in the United States become pregnant as a result of rape. And about a third (30%) of these rapes involved women under age 18!

Madam Speaker, last and most important, I oppose H.R. 36 because it is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973. In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability. While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.

Late Wednesday night because of how absurd H.R. 36 was--it was pulled from the floor.

By prohibiting nearly all abortions beginning at ``the probable post-fertilization age'' of 20 weeks, H.R. 36 violates this clear and long standing constitutional rule.

In striking down Texas's pre-viability abortion prohibitions, the Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade:

With respect to the State's important and legitimate

interest in potential life, the `compelling' point is at

viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has

the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb.

State regulation protective of fetal life after viability

thus has both logical and biological justification. If the

State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability,

it may go as far as to proscribe abortion during that period,

except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of

the mother.

Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979). NOT can the government restrict a woman's autonomy by arbitrarily setting the number of weeks gestation so low as to effectively prohibit access to abortion services as is the case with the bill before us.

If this bill ever were to become law, it would not survive a constitutional challenge even to its facial validity. A similar 20-week provision enacted by the Utah legislature was struck down years ago as unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit because it ``unduly burden[ed] a woman's right to choose to abort a nonviable fetus.'' Jane L. v. Bangerter, 102 F.3d 1112, 1118 (10th Cir. 1996). And just last month, the Ninth Circuit struck down a 20 week ban on the ground that the U.S. Supreme Court has been ``unalterably clear'' that ``a woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable.'' Isaacson v. Horne, F.3d, No. 12-16670, 2013 WL 2160171, at *1 (9th Cir. May 21, 2013).

Madam Speaker, the constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety.

This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.

Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, I am going to state this as simply as I can. There is no public funding for abortion. Whether you like it or not, the Hyde amendment, which has been the law of this land for decades now, says there is no public funding for abortion. That has not changed. There is no public funding for abortion under the Affordable Care Act or any other government program.

This bill would vastly expand the current restrictions on a woman's right to get her own health care through her insurance, with her own private money, that she, her family, and her doctor think she needs. Let me say how this would work. Under H.R. 7, people who buy their insurance in exchanges--and their employers--now would not be able to spend their own private dollars to buy insurance that they need for themselves and their families.

This not only would be a radical expansion over current law, it would be a terrible wedge between patients and their doctors. I do not care how many polls there are that you might cite, because the vast majority of Americans think that a woman's private health care decisions should be made between herself, her family, and her doctor--certainly, not by politicians in Washington, D.C.

H.R. 7 is an idea that has been proposed time and again. It is not going anywhere. I am sure it will probably pass this House today, and it will go over to the other body, and it will die. If not, the President will veto it.

Here are my questions to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Why aren't we spending this week talking about how the women of America can get better paychecks? Why aren't we spending our time talking this week about how the women and men of America can get tax credits so that the children they do have can go to child care that is quality child care? Why aren't we spending our time this week talking about how women and men should be able to get paid the same amount for doing the very same job?

That is what I think this Congress should be spending its time doing, not passing these bills which are false statements about a woman's private decisions about her health care. I urge the body to defeat this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I have good news for my friends on the other side of the aisle. There is no taxpayer funding for abortion. Let me say that again. There is no taxpayer funding for abortions. There hasn't been for many decades because of the Hyde amendment.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that prohibition did not change. Now, some of us might disagree with the Hyde amendment, but that is the law of the land, and it was a carefully constructed compromise under the Affordable Care Act.

This bill would be a vast expansion of the restriction of a woman's right to choose what type of insurance she can purchase with the consultation of her doctor and her husband because it would prevent women from purchasing insurance with their own money on the exchanges, and that would be a restriction on their rights. So I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived piece of legislation, and let's talk about some things that really matter, like jobs, child care, and pay equity.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the Democratic Caucus chairman, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I would just ask my colleagues on the other side to please give me an example where Federal taxpayer dollars have been used to pay for an abortion, except with the Hyde amendment exceptions.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the ranking Democrat on the Constitution Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking member of Energy and Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the distinguished senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy).

Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), one of our distinguished new Members.

Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

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

Madam Speaker, I just have to end with what I started with. There is no Federal taxpayer funding for abortion. There has not been for many decades.

Some people, like me, think that this is an ill-conceived public policy, but it is the law of the land, it is the law of the land every year in the appropriations bill, and it is part of the compromise that was negotiated with the Affordable Care Act, so we need to keep that in mind as we talk about what this legislation does.

What this legislation will do is it will take away the ability of women in the exchanges to buy comprehensive health care insurance with their own money.

Now, I heard many speakers on the other side of the aisle today talk about their deep concerns about abortion and unwanted pregnancies. Well, I will tell you something: if you want to reduce unwanted pregnancies--which all of us in this room do--what you need to do is give women quality health insurance with robust family planning and a full range of health care services.

The Guttmacher Institute, in a 2010 study, showed, happily, that teen pregnancy in this country was at the lowest rate in over 30 years. Do you know why? Two reasons: number one, birth control for these teenagers; and, number two, comprehensive health insurance.

This Congress which has passed, over and over again, restrictions on birth control access--not just for teens, but for all women--and restrictions on comprehensive family planning is actually passing legislation that is going to stop this decrease in unwanted teen pregnancies.

It is an ill-conceived policy. It is a wrongheaded policy. If we want to stop unwanted pregnancies, the way to do it is to have comprehensive health insurance for all American women.

Now, the majority, at the last minute, pulled the bill with the egregious provisions on rape that would have required rape victims to affirmatively go to the police before they could raise the exception, but don't make any mistake about it, this bill is just as egregious as that bill.

The reason it is is because, in an unprecedented move, it stops American women and their families from being able to get comprehensive health insurance with their own money.

What would happen is it would open up a significant divide between the coverage that large employers would give to families and small employers and individuals.

Now, the other thing this does is it reopens the debate and the compromise that we had in the Affordable Care Act. The compromise we made in that bill was that there would be no public funding for abortion under the Affordable Care Act.

It was negotiated, it was agreed upon, and as the other side admitted, the President issued an executive order saying he would enforce the current law on that, and, in fact, that is what happened.

The act required two separate premium payments for women and their families who receive premium tax credits and choose coverage that includes abortion services. The act is clear in its language. No portion of premium tax credits may be used to pay for the portion of comprehensive health coverage that is purchased in the marketplaces that relates to abortion services.

The compromise was agreed upon by pro-life groups like the Catholic Health Association and everybody else, and now, this compromise is being thrown out the window.

Well, our opponents say there was a GAO report last September that said that insurance companies were not segregating the funds, so they say that that means, somehow, Federal dollars are being used to pay for abortions.

Well, after that GAO study came out, Madam Speaker, the HHS promulgated a new rule clarifying the agreement under the Affordable Care Act that the funds had to be segregated, and they promulgated this rule on Wednesday, November 26.

Madam Speaker, I will insert that proposed rule into the Record at the end of my remarks.

So this compromise is being honored by the administration.

Now, early in this debate, I asked my opponents to please give me one example where Federal taxpayer dollars have been used to pay for abortions. I haven't heard that example, and it is because it is not happening. This is a false issue that is being raised.

I would submit to everybody here: let's stop talking about this false issue just because there are a whole bunch of people in town who want us to pass some legislation; let's talk about some real issues.

We just received a Statement of Administration Policy from the White House. Not surprisingly, the administration has said that the President would veto this bill. The bill is likely dead on arrival in the Senate, but even if it did pass, it would be vetoed.

I have a suggestion for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: let's take up some issues that the women and families of America care about; let's take up the issue of how we are going to give women good jobs with comprehensive health insurance, so they can make their own decisions, along with their family and their doctor.

Let's talk about legislation that will allow women of America to get jobs that have equal pay for equal work to the men. Let's talk about a bill that will give tax credits for families who have to struggle every month to pay for child care for their little kids. Let's talk about that.

And finally, let's talk about parental leave, which virtually every other country in the world has, so that when families have children whom they love so much and want to take care of, they won't have to go back to work because their employer doesn't pay them for family leave. Let's talk about that because, Madam Speaker, that is what the women and families of America want us to talk about.

I urge us to reject this legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote.

g. Segregation of Funds for Abortion Services

(Sec. 156.280)

Section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act and Sec. 156.280

specify accounting and other standards for issuers of QHPs

through the Exchange in the individual market that cover

abortion services for which public funding is prohibited

(also referred to as non-excepted abortion services). The

statute and regulations establish that unless otherwise

prohibited by State law, a QHP issuer may elect to cover such

services. If an issuer elects to cover such services under a

QHP sold through the individual market Exchange, the issuer

must take certain steps to ensure that no premium tax credit

or cost-sharing reduction funds are used to pay claims for

abortion services for which public funding may not be used.

We are providing guidance on an individual market Exchange

issuer's responsibilities with respect to requirements

related to QHP coverage of abortion services for which public

funding is prohibited. HHS works with stakeholders, including

States and issuers, to help them fully understand and follow

the statutes and regulations governing the provision of

health insurance coverage under a QHP through the Exchange.

As is the case with many provisions in the Affordable Care

Act, States and State insurance commissioners are the

entities primarily responsible for implementing and enforcing

the provisions in section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act

related to individual market QHP coverage of nonexcepted

abortion services. OPM may issue guidance related to these

provisions for multi-State plan issuers.

Under section 1303(b)(2)(B) of the Affordable Care Act, as

implemented in Sec. 156.280(e)(2)(i), individual market

Exchange issuers must collect a separate payment from each

enrollee, for an amount equal to the AV of the coverage for

abortions for which public funding is prohibited. However,

section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act and Sec. 156.280 do

not specify the method an issuer must use to comply with the

separate payment requirement. This provision may be satisfied

in a number of ways. Several such ways include, but are not

limited to: sending the enrollee a single monthly invoice or

bill that separately itemizes the premium amount for

nonexcepted abortion services; sending a separate monthly

bill for these services; or sending the enrollee a notice at

or soon after the time of enrollment that the monthly invoice

or bill will include a separate charge for such services and

specify the charge. Section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act

permits, but does not require a QHP issuer to separately

identify the premium for non-excepted abortion services on

the monthly premium bill in order to comply with the separate

payment requirement. A consumer may pay the premium for non-

excepted abortion services and for all other services in a

single transaction, with the issuer depositing the funds into

the issuer's separate allocation accounts as required by

section 1301(b)(2)(C) of the Affordable Care Act, as

implemented in Sec. 156.280(e)(2)(ii) and Sec. 156.280(e)(3).

Section 1303(b)(2)(D) of the Affordable Care Act, as

implemented in Sec. 156.280(e)(4), establishes requirements

for individual market Exchange issuers with respect to how

much they must charge each QHP enrollee for coverage of

abortions for which public funding is prohibited. A QHP

issuer must estimate the basic per enrollee, per month cost,

determined on an average actuarial basis, for including

coverage of non-excepted abortion services. In making this

estimate, a QHP issuer may not estimate the basic cost of

coverage for non-excepted abortion services to be less than

one dollar per enrollee, per month. This means that an issuer

must charge each QHP enrollee a minimum premium of one dollar

per month for coverage of non-excepted abortion services.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 7--No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

(Rep. Smith, R-New Jersey, and 20 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 7. The legislation

would intrude on women's reproductive freedom and access to

health care; increase the financial burden on many Americans;

unnecessarily restrict the private insurance choices that

consumers have today; and restrict the District of Columbia's

use of local funds, which undermines home rule. Longstanding

Federal policy prohibits the use of Federal funds for

abortions, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the

life of the woman would be endangered. This prohibition is

maintained in the Affordable Care Act and reinforced through

the President's Executive Order 13535. H.R. 7 would go well

beyond these safeguards by interfering with consumers'

private health care choices. The Administration strongly

opposes legislation that unnecessarily restricts women's

reproductive freedoms and consumers' private insurance

options.

If the President were presented with H.R. 7 his senior

advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in support of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act.

Madam Speaker, we know from science that everyone's life begins at conception. The right to life is God-given and is described in our Declaration of Independence as ``unalienable,'' which means something that cannot be taken away. I defend, Madam Speaker, the right to life of everyone in this country and of everyone in this Chamber, even of those opposed to this legislation.

This bill helps promote a culture of life. It reflects the overwhelming opinion held by Americans that taxpayer dollars should not be used to pay for abortion. It also holds President Obama accountable for another one of his broken promises, when he assured us that his health care law would not allow taxpayer funds to be used for abortion.

We know, Madam Speaker, from a September 15, 2014, GAO report on health insurance exchanges that tax dollars are paying for more than 1,000 ObamaCare plans that cover elective abortions. This bill stops that. I insert the GAO report into the Congressional Record.

[From the U.S. Government Accountability Office, Sept. 15, 2014]

Congressional Requesters--Health Insurance Exchanges: Coverage of Non-

excepted Abortion Services by Qualified Health Plans

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

requires the establishment in all states of health insurance

exchanges--marketplaces where eligible individuals may

compare and select among insurance plans offered by

participating private issuers of health coverage. PPACA

requires the insurance plans offered under an exchange, known

as qualified health plans (QHP), to provide a package of

essential health benefits--including coverage for specific

service categories, such as ambulatory care, prescription

drugs, and hospitalization. In addition to these categories

states may require or restrict coverage of other benefits by

QHPs. Consistent with federal and state law, QHPs may cover

other benefits, such as abortion services.

PPACA prohibits the use of federal funds made available to

offset the cost of QHP coverage--that is, income-based tax

credits and subsidies--to pay for ``non-excepted abortion

services,'' which, based on the law applicable to the 2014

benefit year, are abortion services performed except where

the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest, or

the life of the pregnant woman would be endangered unless an

abortion is performed. While QHPs may cover non-excepted

abortion services, PPACA places requirements on the provision

of such coverage. These include the requirement to estimate

the cost of coverage of such services, at an amount of no

less than $1 per enrollee, per month, and to collect from

each enrollee an amount equal to the actuarial value of the

coverage--segregated from any other premium amounts collected

by the QHP--to be used to pay for the costs associated with

providing non-excepted abortion services. In addition, PPACA

directed the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to contract

with issuers to offer at least two multi-state QHPs in each

state, at least one of which does not cover non-excepted

abortion services.

There are 23 states with laws restricting the circumstances

under which QHPs may provide non-excepted abortion services

as a covered benefit in 2014, and 28 states with no such

laws. Among the 23 states with restrictions, 17 have laws

that do not permit the coverage of non-excepted abortion

services by QHPs, and 6 states permit the coverage of non-

excepted abortion services only in limited circumstances,

such as to prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of

a pregnant woman's major bodily function.

You asked that we provide a list of QHPs that do and that

do not cover abortion services and for additional information

on issues related to that coverage. This report describes

whether non-excepted abortion services are covered by QHPs

within the 28 states with no laws restricting such coverage

for the 2014 benefit year, and provides additional

information--such as the scope and the cost of non-excepted

abortion services coverage--for selected QHPs that cover such

services.

To obtain the information we present here, we contacted

every state to determine whether states had laws restricting

the circumstances under which abortion services may be

provided as a covered benefit by QHPs in 2014. Based on our

review of those laws and relevant federal laws and

regulations, we determined that 23 states have laws

restricting the circumstances under which non-excepted

abortion services may be provided as a covered benefit by

QHPs for the 2014 benefit year. In order to report on

whether non-excepted abortion services are covered by QHPs

within the 28 states with no laws restricting such

coverage in 2014, we obtained data on QHPs' coverage of

non-excepted abortion services from the Centers for

Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), within the Department

of Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency responsible

for overseeing the establishment of health insurance

exchanges; private issuers of QHPs; state departments of

insurance and state exchange organizations; and from

officials at OPM. While these data sources have different

characteristics and limitations, we have determined that,

when taken together, they are reliable for the purpose of

indentifying which QHPs do and which do not provide non-

excepted abortion services coverage in 2014 within the 28

states with no laws restricting such coverage. To provide

additional information regarding non-excepted abortion

services for selected QHPs that cover such services, we

interviewed and collected documentation from a non-

probability sample of 18 issuers about the QHPs they offer

in 10 states. Our criteria for selecting these issuers

included states with no laws restricting non-excepted

abortion services coverage organized by CMS region, state

uninsured population, and number of issuers covering non-

excepted abortion services. These 18 issuers accounted for

nearly one-quarter of QHPs that covered non-excepted

abortion services and were offered within the 28 states.

We conducted our work from February 2014 to September 2014

in accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance

Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework

requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain

sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated

objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We

believe that the information and data obtained, and the

analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any

findings and conclusions in this product.

Results

1. Which QHPs participating in health insurance exchanges

provide non-excepted abortion services as a covered benefit,

and which do not?

Within the 28 states with no laws restricting the

circumstances under which QHPs may provide non-excepted

abortion services as a covered benefit in 2014:

--in 5 states (Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode

Island, and Vermont), all QHPs cover non-excepted abortion

services;

--in 15 states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, the

District of Columbia, Georgia, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas,

and Washington), some QHPs cover non-excepted abortion

services; and

--in 8 states (Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada,

New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Wyoming), no QHPs cover

non-excepted abortion services.

Nationally, 1,036 QHPs in these 28 states cover non-

excepted abortion services and 1,062 QHPs do not.

2. For selected QHPs, what is the scope of the non-excepted

abortion services benefits that are provided?

Of the 18 issuers offering QHPs that cover non-excepted

abortion services from which we obtained information, all but

three issuers indicated that the benefit is not subject to

any restrictions, limitations, or exclusions. One issuer told

us that it only covers services for a ``therapeutic

abortion,'' which a health care provider determines to be

medically necessary. Two issuers that offered QHPs in New

York indicated that, consistent with requirements set by the

state-based exchange, they impose a limit of one non-excepted

abortion treatment per year. However, one of these two

issuers indicated they also offer QHPs that were not subject

to this restriction. All 18 issuers also indicated that their

abortion services benefit is subject to the same requirements

as other benefits, such as enrollee out-of-pocket costs--

including deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance--and prior

authorization, all of which can vary depending on the

location where the service is provided. For example, issuers

indicated that if this service is provided in an outpatient

setting--which one issuer noted is the typical location--

enrollees are not required to request prior authorization,

similar to any other service performed in an outpatient

setting. Additionally, if performed in an inpatient setting,

the service would require prior authorization, similar to any

other service performed in such a setting. Issuers indicated

that this benefit is described in member materials where

other covered benefits are listed.

3. For selected QHPs, how do issuers estimate the cost of

non-excepted abortion services coverage, what is this cost,

and how are enrollees billed for this coverage?

To estimate the cost of covering non-excepted abortion

services, issuers we contacted indicated that they generally

reviewed historical costs for these procedures, similar to

the approach used to estimate the actuarial value of the

premium attributable to the cost of other covered benefits.

All but one of the issuers from which we obtained information

estimated the cost of the coverage of non-excepted abortion

services to be less than $1 per enrollee, per month. For

example, officials from one issuer told us that their

actuaries estimated that the cost for non-excepted abortion

services ranged between 10 cents and 20 cents per enrollee,

per

month, calculated across multiple states, while officials

with another issuer said that the cost for these services

ranged from 10 cents to 70 cents per enrollee, per month. All

but two of the issuers that estimated the cost to be less

than $1 indicated they rounded the amount up to comply with

PPACA's requirement that the cost of such coverage be

estimated at no less than $1 per enrollee, per month. The

other two issuers noted that they did not round up the amount

to the statutory minimum of $1 and, therefore, were not using

this statutory minimum as a basis for determining premium

amounts to collect from enrollees for non-excepted abortion

services. The highest cost estimated by the issuers we

interviewed was $1.10 per enrollee, per month. For several of

the issuers we contacted, the premium amount associated with

non-excepted abortion services coverage was reported to also

be $1; however, for other issuers the premium amount varied

from the cost issuers estimated for this coverage. For

example, the issuer that estimated the cost of coverage of

non-excepted abortion services at $1.10 per enrollee, per

month, indicated that when adjusted to a paid cost based upon

plan design and administrative expenses, the premium amount

collected from enrollees ranged from 51 cents to $1.46,

depending on the specific QHP.

Fifteen issuers and the Washington Health Benefit

Exchange--which bills enrollees on behalf of issuers offering

QHPs in the state-based exchange, including for 2 of the 18

issuers from which we obtained information--did not itemize

the premium amount associated with non-excepted abortion

services coverage on enrollees' bills nor indicate that they

send a separate bill for that premium amount. Officials from

the remaining issuer from which we obtained information told

us that their bills indicate that there is a $1 charge ``for

coverage of services for which member subsidies may not be

used.''

4. For selected QHPs, how are consumers shopping for QHPs

able to determine whether non-excepted abortion services are

covered?

PPACA does not establish any requirements on whether or how

information about non-excepted abortion services should be

made available to consumers before they enroll in QHPs,

though six of the issuers we contacted indicated that they

made available such information about coverage for abortion

services--which they stated includes both excepted and non-

excepted abortion services--to consumers shopping for QHPs.

These issuers indicated that there are various ways consumers

may determine if their QHPs provide coverage for abortion

services before they enroll. For example, issuers said that

QHP materials--such as their summary of benefits and coverage

or member policies, such as the Evidence of Coverage

document--indicate that abortion services are covered, and

these materials are available to consumers shopping for QHPs

through the issuer's website or through the exchange's

website. Specifically, officials with one issuer informed us

that their Evidence of Coverage document, which provides

details about the features of their QHPs, was available

through the state-based exchange and the benefit--``voluntary

termination of pregnancy''--is identified in that document

under ``Family Planning Services.'' Eleven issuers indicated

that consumers shopping for QHPs do not have access to such

information; some of these issuers indicated that consumers

would need to call the issuer directly before enrolling to

determine whether a QHP provides coverage for abortion

services.

PPACA requires that QHP issuers providing non-excepted

abortion services coverage notify enrollees at the time of

enrollment that those services are covered. While most

issuers from which we collected information indicated they

were notifying enrollees that abortion services were provided

as a covered benefit, four issuers indicated they were not

disclosing this information to enrollees. Officials with two

of these four issuers told us they had only recently become

aware of this requirement, and were in the process of

updating their enrollee materials to come into compliance

with the notification requirement. Officials with the other

two issuers, both of which offered QHPs in the same state,

told us that they are not providing enrollees with

notification of the coverage of non-excepted abortion

services at the time of enrollment. These officials said that

they use model plan materials developed by the state that do

not specifically indicate that non-excepted abortion services

are a covered benefit, and that such information would only

be provided upon enrollee request.

As hundreds of thousands march today on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, I urge my colleagues to join me in committing to defend the sanctity of life and vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 42 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. 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

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 42 provides for a closed rule allowing consideration of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

Since 1973, at least 52 million children's lives have been tragically taken by abortion in the United States. It is unconscionable that in America, where we fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we tolerate this systematic extermination of an entire generation of the most vulnerable among us.

In the midst of that darkness, there has been one area of consensus, Mr. Speaker: protecting taxpayers from paying for a practice they sincerely oppose. 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 baby to term.

In 1993, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Hyde amendment prevented as many as 675,000 abortions every single year. That means that millions of Americans are alive today because of the Hyde amendment. After 38 years, it is time for this lifesaving 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 Federal subsidies to assist millions of Americans to purchase private health plans that will cover abortions on demand. In other words, Mr. Speaker, hard-earned taxpayer dollars are now being used to pay for elective abortions. This is simply unacceptable.

H.R. 7 will codify the principles of the Hyde amendment on a permanent, governmentwide basis, which means that it will apply to 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, one, prohibiting all Federal funding for abortions; two, prohibiting Federal subsidies for ACA health care plans that include coverage for abortion; three, prohibiting the use of Federal facilities for abortion; and four, prohibiting Federal employees from performing abortions.

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 to respect our Nation's consensus on abortion funding and affirm life by voting in favor of this rule and H.R. 7.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, this legislation is identical to H.R. 7, which passed the House last Congress after moving through regular order, including a full committee markup.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the strongest champions of life in this House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Dr. Babin.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Benishek.

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

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 tax 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 that 67 percent of respondents opposed the 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 that 61 percent of respondents opposed government subsidies for health insurance that include 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.''

In other words, Madam Speaker, 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 part of their benefits packages.''

Even Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has voted numerous times to prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion in the District of Columbia. President Obama voted against the taxpayer funding of abortion in the District of Columbia twice when he was in the Senate, and since being elected, 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 is supported by the majority of the American people. It is time to restore the status quo on the 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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I want to say as forcefully as I can that there is nothing in H.R. 7 that restricts the private sale of plans that include abortion. There is nothing in H.R. 7 that restricts the private sale of plans that include abortion. Consistent with the Hyde amendment, the bill ensures that Federal dollars--wherever those Federal dollars come from--do not subsidize plans that cover abortion.

What is important to explain is that the Hyde amendment has only in the past applied to annual appropriations bills. As we have done our best to explain to the American people, ObamaCare is not subject to annual appropriations bills but is funded under mandatory spending. Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is important that we codify that no Federal funds can be used for abortions. That is what this bill does.

If our colleagues believe it is unnecessary, then they should have no problem voting for it because, then, it is not doing anything that violates what has been done in the past. However, this bill is necessary. Let me say again, Madam Speaker, that H.R. 7 simply codifies the longstanding bipartisan agreement that Federal taxpayer funding should not be used to destroy innocent life.

H.R. 7 does so by establishing a permanent, governmentwide prohibition on taxpayer subsidies for abortion and abortion coverage, including cutting off taxpayer funding for plans that include abortion under ObamaCare;

It prevents funding for abortion in government programs like Medicaid, the Federal Health Benefits Program, and the Children's Health Insurance Program;

The bill also ensures that subsidies made available in the form of refundable tax credits under the ACA are prevented from flowing to plans that include abortion;

H.R. 7 also explicitly states that private individuals may purchase separate abortion coverage or plans that include abortion as long as no Federal subsidies are used to pay for the abortion coverage. Similarly, H.R. 7 explicitly states that insurance companies may offer abortion coverage as long as the coverage is not paid for by using taxpayer dollars.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

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

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 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.'' Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, that promise didn't pan out. It now joins ``if you like your plan, you can keep it'' in President Obama's panoply of broken promises.

Madam Speaker, today, hundreds of thousands of Americans are coming to Washington, D.C., to brave the cold and march for life. Participants hail from all 50 States, have various religions, and are from all different walks of life and ages. But the one thing they have in common is the shared dedication to protecting the unborn.

The March for Life gives a voice to the voiceless and sends a powerful message to the 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.

Madam Speaker, 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. It is a commonsense proposal that codifies a longstanding compromise. 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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

While it is true that the Hyde amendment and its companion amendments have been renewed every year, recent implementation of the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, has ignored these restrictions. Rather than renewing various amendments each year, we should make the prohibition on Federal abortion funding permanent and governmentwide.

Additionally, provisions contained in the Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act have been included in H.R. 7. These provisions require the exchanges to prominently display, one, whether a plan provides for abortion coverage; and, two, if it does, the amount of the abortion surcharge that the consumer is required to pay.

Unfortunately, for most consumers, finding out if the plans on their State's exchange or the Federal marketplace covers abortion is nearly impossible because the information is not consistently available.

Knowing whether these plans cover abortion is absolutely critical to many consumers because plans that cover elective abortion are required by law to impose a mandatory monthly abortion surcharge.

These surcharges are not optional. Once you sign up for a plan with abortion coverage, you must pay the surcharge. This means that, potentially, many Americans who strongly oppose elective abortion could be unknowingly contributing to the practice financially.

Madam Speaker, that simply isn't right. H.R. 7 will stop funding for plans that cover elective abortion under ObamaCare and ensure that abortion coverage and the accompanying surcharge are made transparent to the American people.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and H.R. 7, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that it is clear some of our colleagues have not read the bill or have not listened to the debate. This bill does not prohibit women from purchasing abortion coverage with their own money.

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

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

Madam Speaker, life is the most fundamental of all rights. It is sacred and God-given, but millions of babies have been robbed of that right in this, the freest country in the world. That is a tragedy beyond words and a betrayal of what we, as a nation, stand for.

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, will be closed and collectively deemed one of the darkest chapters in American history, but until that day, it remains a solemn duty 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, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and H.R. 7.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, down the hall in the old House Chamber stands Clio, Muse of History. Perched atop the room, she is riding the Chariot of Time. She has watched silently over the proceedings of this House since 1807. And in the folio that rests in the crook of her arm, she records every move, large and small, for the benefit of all generations, past, present, and future. What she is recording today is, I am certain, a disappointment.

The proceedings playing out before us today show a blatant, overt disrespect for the time-honored rules of this House, first written by Thomas Jefferson in 1801.

The bill that was supposed to come to the floor today, a bill that would have stripped women of their right to constitutionally protected medical care, was so odious and destructive that some of the women of the Republican Conference rebelled against it. It was based on unsound and fictitious science and caused such a meltdown in the Republican Conference that the House majority pulled it from the floor for fear that it wouldn't pass. But something had to be done because visitors were coming to town for the 42nd anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade.

On this day, there are floods of visitors here in the Nation's Capital to fight against that ruling, to protest that decision, and to raise their clarion call against a woman's right to choose.

In this current Congress, this bill was not brought to us under regular order--as not many are. It had no committee action. It had no hearings, no markup, no witnesses testified in favor or against it, and it came out of the Rules Committee and to the floor today under a closed rule.

One of the ever-ready alternatives came to us late last night, and it is even worse than the one it replaced. It seems that the majority has an endless supply of bills attacking women's health. Can't pass this one? Grab another. Can't pass that one? Just take the next one. Their insistence on attacking women's health seemingly knows no bounds.

Because this bill has not seen any committee action in the current Congress, no one has been able to read it or to weigh in on it or amend it, and some of us would like a clarification on the sordid history of this bill.

In the earliest version of this bill, which was in the 112th Congress, there was a phrase that lit a firestorm across the Nation. It was ``forcible rape.'' The bill was, indeed, the one that would have required women to prove that

their rape was ``forcible'' so it could be categorized as ``legitimate.'' Has nothing been learned here?

The next iteration of the bill, in the 113th Congress, included a provision--and listen to this, America--that would have required the IRS to audit women who had had abortions to ensure that the pregnancy that they terminated had been the result of rape or incest.

This extreme legislation, which is a dust-covered holdover from the last Congress, 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. Remember those pictures, America, all of those men sitting there deciding what women's health would be about? It is a perfect illustration of a problem we have had for a long time, that men in blue suits and red ties determine what women can and should do when it comes to their own health or bodies.

This bill is absolutely a solution in search of a problem. As Ms. Foxx pointed out, all this is taken care of. There is no tax money for abortions. The bill in its current form would permanently prohibit low- income women, civil servants, District of Columbia residents, and military women from accessing a full range of reproductive services by codifying the Hyde amendment, which unfortunately already requires no taxpayer funds be spent on abortions except in very limited services. It has been this way for decades. Congress should be repealing these unfair and discriminatory bans, not doubling down on them.

Are these provisions still in the current bill text before us? We have had no chance to check, and it has been awhile since we have seen this bill.

This display is a messaging opportunity and another attempt to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. This bill not only threatens women who buy their insurance on public exchanges with Federal tax credits but also threatens women who use their own private money to pay for their health insurance on the exchanges. Experts tell us this would jeopardize the availability of abortion coverage for all women, no matter where they buy their insurance.

When the House considered this bill in the previous Congress, it was attempt number 49. Today, it is attempt number 55. That is right, ladies and gentlemen, 55 votes the majority has held in this Chamber to take health care away from their own constituents. The House majority has wasted nearly $80 million of taxpayer money to destroy the Affordable Care Act.

Infrastructure money, anyone?

Time and again, we see the House majority turn their backs on the people they represent and force an extreme agenda, one filled with poison pills that would take our country backward, backward to a time when women died from back-alley abortions; backward to a time of women in desperate circumstances seeking illegal procedures performed by strangers with dirty hands in unspeakable conditions; backward to a time when medical choices were not the choice of the woman, but of the public; backward to a time when women who ``got themselves into trouble'' by getting pregnant could not work and could not go to school.

These choices are personal. They are not public. A woman's actions regarding her own reproductive health should include anyone she deems appropriate, not politicians in Washington or State capitals scoring political points off her health care.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say there is no scientific evidence at all. As a matter of fact, gynecologists have all written to us--and we have their statements--that there is no way of fetal pain at 20 weeks.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Chair is correct, and we will do that.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene) to speak as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that we have heard what is in this bill, but this bill was taken out of the used-bill freezer last night at 9 o'clock, against all the rules, and put on the floor today. We really don't know what is in this bill.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

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

I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

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

Madam Speaker, we just heard that apparently none of us have read the bill. That is absolutely true. The bill, as I said, was dragged out of the ``used bill freezer'' at 9 last night.

If it is the same bill that we were talking about that has been through for several terms, it still has the idea of forcible rape being the only legitimate rape and that the IRS can audit to see if you were really raped when you had an abortion and to prove that--again, taking women back to the days when everybody said that they could not make decisions and that they had to be made for them.

If this is the same bill that was brought to us, as we pointed out, by a subcommittee of 13 men and voted through the House by a committee of 21 men, then we don't need to read it again, and my understanding is that this is the same bill. It was repugnant then, and it certainly is repugnant now.

On behalf of the men and women of the United States who feel that they have the right to make their own health decisions, I beg the House of Representatives to turn down all of this.

Now, we know that what they are doing, literally, is dismissive of not only 51 percent of the women population--we are the majority population, we women in the United States--but this is certainly, by any account, a misuse of the Chamber's attention, and we are talking taxpayer funds. Believe me, this is a misuse of taxpayer funds.

Now, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow us to strike the 3-day layover waiver, the waiver that was given by the Rules Committee to not do the 3-day layover, but to have something to do on the floor today.

With 23 months left of the 114th Congress, we should be able to run the House in the thoughtful manner that the rules of the House provide for.

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.

Now, I am going to urge again for all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question, vote ``no'' on the rule and, by all means, ``no'' on the intrusive, deceptive bill that has been talked about here for 40 years.

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

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