No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, tonight, what I would like to do is engage the American people on several subjects. I will be speaking for quite a bit of time tonight on the health care issue facing America.

Mr. Speaker, before I get there, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a very dear friend of mine.

Windswept Plains of Nebraska

I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) not only for taking time today to discuss the important things that he has on his mind, but also for sharing with the American people his ideas about where our country is and where we are headed with the new Presidency, a new Senate, and a new House of Representatives.

Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about the current state of our Nation's healthcare system.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am given this time as a result of the majority leader, Mr. McCarthy. He has given me time to talk about an important issue that faces not only our country, but also elected Members of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and the President of the United States, our new President, President Trump.

As each of us is aware, the issue of health care is one of the most important issues that has been faced in our Nation for many years. Back in 2009, President Obama began the search that he talked about for what was called an Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act seemed to be a promise to make health care better. It seemed to be a word, in the words of the President, an Affordable Care Act that would help all Americans to receive health care on a fair basis and one that would be sustainable.

The President stood before this body several times and talked about his ideas about health care. It took about a year, maybe a little bit more, for the Democratic Congress to work through this issue. On or about March 21 or 22, 2010, a bill popped out of the United States Senate, came to the House of Representatives, and we handled the matter here up in the Rules Committee, brought it to the floor, passed it with debate, no opposition--no opposition, meaning Republicans were not allowed to present an alternative case, a bill. It was a closed rule. And the Democrats passed it and went to the White House the next day, March 23, 2010, and signed the bill.

The American people had grave reservations about that, but what happened is that it took several years in which they were working through this process. We did not know exactly what would happen; but, almost immediately, hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of spending would take place and taxes would take place. What the President did and what the Democrat Party did is they tied health care directly to employers and put mandates on top of employers and mandates on top of individuals with the belief that individuals would be forced into taking what was then ObamaCare--health care--under the Affordable Care Act.

What has happened over the years, including as we stand today, is that only some 12 to 20 million people are on ObamaCare at any one time. That is because the system that was devised and run by the Affordable Care Act is a system that does not work well. It is very expensive. It provides limited benefits. And perhaps worst of all, the promise that it would make health care available and better for poorer people never materialized as they sold it. In fact, healthcare providers are reimbursed 50 percent less than from normal insurance; meaning that, while you may have some bit of coverage, the people who would accept that health care are hard to find.

It is true that many times you could find someone who is a GP-- someone who is a family physician, someone who is an internist who might take what is known as ObamaCare--but if he found something that might be wrong or needed to refer that individual, it was very difficult to do. In my hometown of Dallas, Texas, major hospitals do not take what is known as ObamaCare under the Affordable Care Act, and it is because of this problem that it is a false promise for the people who are on it.

Members of Congress are legally required to be on ObamaCare if we accept the health care from our providers, but President Obama did not ask anyone else in government to fall under the same opportunities that we would have as Members of Congress. Over the years, it became a festering point--a sore--among not only those who were paying the costs, but also those who were on it saw it as a concrete life preserver, one that did not live up to its billing. Repeatedly, businesses would come to the House of Representatives--to Members of Congress--and say to us: This law is not only not working, it is causing us to make full-time employees become part-time employees because we cannot either pay or do not want to or do not have the ability to follow all of the requirements of the law.

We here in America saw not only dwindling opportunities for employment, but we also saw the skyrocketing cost--from taxes, from behavior that did not help health care. So Republicans, yes, and the American people began talking about some way that we could isolate health care to where we would have our friends who were Democrats want to accept one of these opportunities to fix this broken system. Over the years, Republicans offered some 60 different alternative votes-- piece parts, rifle shots--that said we want to fix ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. We picked 60 different things about the bill that were either incomplete, that did not live up to the billing, that caused bad behavior, or that simply were tremendously anticompetitive in their nature.

It was a lonely few years.

As the chairman of the House Rules Committee, day after day, we would seek opportunities for our colleagues to come join us to present their ideas, and they not only disagreed with us, but they chastised us. We kept going. We kept offering alternatives to a healthcare system that was not working.

Mr. Speaker, what happened is the American people soon saw, as we came close to another election, that we were going to have to ask the American people to be a part of the solution. We had tried in Washington, D.C. We had over 60 votes and we had made it a regular part of our discussion. Republicans, each time, had better ideas, better alternatives--ways to take 60 different pieces and trade them out so that we could better this terrible law that was not working.

Then came the election. With the election, one of the most key and cleanest issues that was discussed was not only the repeal of ObamaCare, but the promise that Republicans would replace it also. For the past 4 or 5 years, Republicans have had a talking point that we want to repeal and to replace the healthcare system that was known as ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I am here tonight--to talk about Republican ideas that we think are better for health care and ideas that we think will work not only in a marketplace, but that will be able to be used by a vast number of people here in America. It will not be something that is use it or lose it, as health care many times is. It will be sustainable. Perhaps, more importantly, there will be the ability for families to get what they want and to not have to pay for what they do not need. It passed on March 21 by a vote of 219-212. No Republican supported the Affordable Care Act, but every Republican understands that health care is important to families. It is important that a family takes the responsibility and tries to cover its family.

Tonight, as I speak with you about where we are in health care, I want to include the words that come from Dallas, Texas--my home--of the families whom I have gotten to know and of the families who have communicated with me, because, as their Member of Congress, I am expected not only to listen, but to try and work for their betterment. I am probably no different than hundreds of other Members of Congress who come to Washington every week with a message.

This is from Julie Ross of Dallas, Texas, with her two beautiful children. This is a very high-level conversation in which she says:

Now that my daughter is at home and thriving--who was in

the hospital--we depend upon these protections to provide

health care for her complex healthcare needs.

ObamaCare did not meet those needs; but as a Member of Congress, if I am going to talk about repealing, I need to also, forthrightly, talk about replacing what is a bad healthcare law with a better healthcare alternative. Republicans have better ideas to fix health care, and I am going to speak about these.

The first thing I would like to speak about is the reality that about 150 million Americans have an opportunity to receive their health care on a pretax basis. That means that our employers and our employees who work for large companies have a chance to get their health care without paying for it on an after-tax basis. I pay about $13,000 myself out of pocket for my health care. My employer pays essentially what is a 70-30 split, but that entire amount is on a pretax basis. The 1943 employer- sponsored insurance exemption and the 21st Century Cures, which we just passed this last December, allow businesses an opportunity to provide their employees with pretax health insurance. Pretax health insurance means that they are able to deduct the contributions that they make for their employees, and employees are allowed to receive this as a benefit.

However, this, I believe, is part of what we have known for a long time as being an unfair, rigged system. It is a system that says, if you work for one of these larger companies, you will get that tax advantage; but if you do not--if you are self-employed, if you are an entrepreneur, if you are a 941-type employee, meaning perhaps you are a real estate agent who is self-employed or perhaps you work for a small company--then you are not offered this pretax opportunity. It is probably true that you could deduct that amount next April. As you pay your taxes, you would file if you qualified based upon the amount of money that you spent.

Mr. Speaker, this right here is the disadvantage for about 100 million Americans. They do not receive what 150 million other Americans do, and that is to get their health care on a pretax basis. I have worked now for some 2 years with some 500 physicians who are across the country. We have worked on a system that would allow every single American not only to have better health care, but to have an opportunity to participate on a fair basis.

The gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Arrington) will participate with me tonight and will speak about how important this is for him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), one of our brand new freshman from Lubbock, Texas. Jodey not only comes from the high plains of Lubbock, a young man who has given great service to the State of Texas, but he also comes as our newest member from the Texas delegation who stands not only with the principles of that district, but with the principle of caring about other people. I thank the gentleman for letting his voice be heard about what will be a bill that will be before the House of Representatives tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, continuing our discussion about health care and Republican ideas. Back in 2013, some 4.7 million Americans that had their own health care were knocked off that health care because it didn't qualify in the way that President Obama and Democrats wanted to have a comprehensive healthcare plan. So it knocked off 4.7 million Americans, and what it did is it placed America into a circumstance where we began looking for options and alternatives about how we would insure the uninsured.

We were told: Just watch and wait. This Affordable Care Act is going to make sure that it takes every single American and gives them an affordable healthcare plan.

Here is what happened, Mr. Speaker. We found out that we still have some 30 million people in this country--now in the sixth year of ObamaCare--that do not have coverage. We have learned that about 49 percent of those who are insured work for employers, about 20 percent of the marketplace is Medicaid, about 14 percent is Medicare, but we still have some 9 percent who were uninsured.

We then find out that what happened is that the Federal Government decided that insurance was not working, so we had coops that were invented out of the Affordable Care Act. Seventeen out of the 23 coops have now gone into bankruptcy. They could not provide the services that the Affordable Care Act was just so sure, with government-run programs, would work; and they wiped out almost unilaterally every single insurance plan where they came in. I don't know if it was just because they undercut them, but what they did is provided a false indicator for people.

Well, the Federal Government is here. Barack Obama and Democrats now have a healthcare plan for every single American. Only a few short years later, they are gone. They are gone from the marketplace after wiping out the insurance that was there.

Perhaps worst of all, as they left, there was a requirement by the Obama administration that somebody had to come and renew insurance, even late in the year, or they would receive a $2,000 penalty because they did not have insurance at the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker, this is what the insured and the uninsured look like. A gentleman from Dallas, Texas, Kennis Ketchum told us: I am being penalized for being an entrepreneur. I am in here, and I want to be in here. I want to be able to go and to allow myself to be in insurance, but I cannot afford it because I do not have the tax advantage.

So Republicans finally have the chance for our ideas that we believe are bigger and better. We have a chance to do, I think, what we have wanted to do for a long time; and that is to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but with the promise that we need to make sure that we replace it with something better.

What does this mean?

Well, I will tell you what it means, Mr. Speaker. What it means is that Republicans are going to understand that a simple plan that can be paid for literally with the existing dollars that are in health care today and authorized by law--some $1.2 trillion that exists in law and authorized today--can be utilized for a healthcare system to take care of each and every American. I would like to describe that.

First of all, it is important for us to understand that of the uninsured in this country, 74 percent work. That means that people that are no different than me and you, Mr. Speaker, get up and go to work to the best of their ability. It might be that they don't have all the advantages of education that I have. It could be that they have something in their life that might be an impediment. It could be some sort of perhaps what might be a difference or a disability. I understand this. I have a son that has Down syndrome. Alex is not really capable of taking care of himself, so he is not necessarily one of these that would qualify for what we know as the alternative to ObamaCare.

There are millions who do need the help, who do want and need insurance and not insurance that is like the Affordable Care Act because we know

that reimburses at 50 percent less than insurance, some 25 percent less than Medicaid, a plan that limits the number of physicians and healthcare professionals that a person can see. No.

The American people need something that they can count on. They need something that is better, that provides better reimbursement to where virtually every hospital would take their plan instead of a few, where four times as many doctors would take their plan, their insurance as opposed to them being on ObamaCare. These people who want and seek health care need a plan that is worthy of the representation that would be given to them, and that is the Republican idea.

So Republicans have a chance, an opportunity. Just one of the ideas is to allow the healthcare tax benefits to be consistent with those of every American who works for a large company.

You see, there are two ways to look at this. One might be a high standard deduction that an employee or a person would be able to take and buy health insurance and, next April, be able to write that off, so to speak, as a pretax deduction. You know the problem with that and so do I. Seventy-four percent of the people who are uninsured do not have the money to buy health care. Seventy-four percent of the people who are uninsured might not have enough money to be able to go buy insurance and wait all year long to get back their money next April when they file their taxes.

So one of the ideas that I have--and I shared this plan with Senator Bill Cassidy from Louisiana--is that what we would like to do is to provide a $2,500 tax credit for adults and a $1,500 tax credit for dependent children that would be advanceable, assignable, and refundable.

What would this mean?

This would mean that this year every single American that did not receive the tax advantage--the tax advantage like I receive and some 150 million Americans receive by getting their health care on a pretax basis--would have an opportunity to go online. They would be able to go online and look at the insurance in their area, and they would be able to receive this benefit, this tax advantage. It would not ever come to them. It would go directly to their insurance program.

They would be able to take, for a family of four, some $8,000. They would be able to use this first $8,000--the exact same tax advantage that Pete Sessions and 150 million other Americans get--January 1st of next year and to assign this $8,000 to their healthcare plan.

They could decide they wanted more, and they would be able to do that on a pretax basis also up to $5,000. They could decide that they would like perhaps to get a plan that would be at their local hospital. That is fine. They could decide that they would like to have what is called a health savings account, an HSA, which, more generally, is an opportunity for them to control their costs. This is very attractive for young people and advantageous for young people because they would be able to control their costs and roll these advantages or savings over year after year after year as opposed to losing what they had saved or, at the beginning of the year, starting back over.

Republicans have an opportunity to make things fair. I think this is what President Trump talked about when he was candidate Trump. I think he talked about a rigged system. When you have a system where 150 million Americans get a tax advantage and you don't, you would describe that as a rigged system.

So Republicans, at least one of the proposals that is out there-- because it is Senator Cassidy's and mine, known as the World's Greatest Healthcare Plan--employs an opportunity where up front we allow every single American to have health care January 1 that is superior in nature to whatever they had with ObamaCare.

It allows the purchase of a nongovernment plan and it allows each individual, if they choose, to go to a health savings account.

What is a health savings account?

A health savings account is a well-known product whereby a family would be able to get what is called major medical coverage. They actually, as part of their plan, would make sure that, if they were in the hospital or a member of their family was in the hospital, they would have to cover the first $5,000, but that the insurance plan then that they could find about affording out of this $8,000 for a family of four would give them a chance then to have either a 90/10, 80/20, or 70/30 contribution. Meaning they could decide what they wanted to afford based upon their age, based upon their risk, based upon their own circumstances. But they, as a consumer, would be able to make sure that they are taken care of if they go in the hospital.

Then that contribution, to the level that they would choose--either they would pay 30 percent or 20 percent or 10 percent for expenses past $10,000--gave them the coverage that they need in the marketplace. Maybe it is a baby. Maybe it is major surgery. Maybe it is cancer. But they would receive hospital coverage.

Then with the remaining amount of money, they could then put that into a health savings account and use cash for their doctor's visits. Cash is king. Cash is also the most economical way to get your health care because you go and actually, instead of negotiating with a doctor or looking at what your insurance company negotiated, you negotiate paying that person today instead of the doctor having to file insurance and go through the necessary elements to receive their money back.

You go to the doctor you choose. You pay for what you want. You pay for those things that you have made a decision, and you pay out of your cash account. It is the most leading edge, fastest way to get health care in America, and, generally speaking, it is 18 percent cheaper.

Mr. Speaker, these are but one of the ideas that Republicans bring to the table.

And it is why I can stand up, as chairman of the Rules Committee, when my colleagues say: oh, you are going to take away something that people had with the Affordable Care Act. And I say: you know, I think we have got a better way to look at it.

Instead of only some 27 out of 100 doctors being available to you as a patient, I would like to double or quadruple that. I would like for you to be able to make your own decisions, and, in the long run, you will be better.

But there is more to the story. And the more to the story is, what this will do is allow a robust marketplace where, instead of forcing people to go into a system and then penalizing them, we encourage people to go into a system and encourage them to be not only consumers, and not only to take care of themselves, but to help everybody out because it helps the curve.

It helps people get in of all ages, of all needs, of all types back into the marketplace automatically January 1st. Didn't have to guess at how much money they were going to make; didn't have to worry about whether they got laid off; didn't have to go check with the IRS; didn't have to ask Uncle Sam.

We are automatically giving the tax advantage by virtue of them being American and us doing the right thing off the existing money that exists in ObamaCare and health care today.

Mr. Speaker, that is a better idea. That is a better opportunity for us, as Republicans, to go back home, and, no matter who we want to look at, we can say: we get it. We do get that you want and need health care, that we want and need America to have the greatest healthcare system in the world, but we need to make sure we can pay for it. And it should not restrict business. It should not come and tell a business or a group of people what they will--how they will tie themselves together with their health care and their job that makes absolutely no sense.

I know we were told that is the way it would happen, but it did not. It became a concrete life preserver for employees, employers, and for the marketplace.

So, Mr. Speaker, this health insurance tax advantage is but one of the ideas that is available to the American people and to the Republican Party as part of the world's greatest healthcare system.

I believe that we need a very disciplined approach. I believe that we need to be thoughtful. I believe that we need every single Member of Congress to understand what kind of healthcare system America deserves, not only for the physicians and the hospitals back

home but for the real live people who are called constituents. And we as Members of Congress should know, the day we pass a bill, how we intend it to work.

My colleagues, the Democrats, for 6 years have bumbled around and, even today, don't even understand, nor will they admit, what a disaster ObamaCare is. So, the American people did it for them.

The American people voted in Donald J. Trump. They voted in Republicans to the House in the majority. They voted in Republicans to the Senate. And now we are in Washington, and we are going to struggle. We are going to struggle mightily. We are going to throw ideas onto the wall. We are going to have committee hearings. We are going to have the best thought process.

We are going to be able to go back home and to sell to the American people not only some of the ideas that I have but some of the ideas that my colleagues have. And we are going to come up with a better healthcare system.

So what we are about is fix the system before we repeal it. I believe it is wise to say that Republicans owe it to the American people to say: before we go replacing something--before we repeal something, let's replace it. And more and more and more and more of my colleagues are saying this openly. It only makes sense.

We have nothing to fear with a Republican option and an alternative that will be superior for the American people, and every single person will be able to see that. We believe establishing a Republican alternative that can be implemented this year is the best answer.

Now, this is my idea. My idea is, let's go get it on. We know what we are doing. Let's go hold our hearings. Let's go to the American people. Let's sell the ideas that we have got. Let's go move forward and get this process on.

Secondly, we believe that what we have got to do is use reconciliation to repeal the most onerous mandates. What might those be? Well, the individual and the business mandate, the Cadillac tax.

We believe that we have got to go and use the processes, the leverage that we have got. And then we have got to count on what I hope will be the gentleman from Georgia, Tom Price, who is today the chairman of the Budget Committee, but tomorrow has been nominated to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

We will count on Dr. Tom Price actually sitting in the seat, looking at the exact same law that was overwhelmingly voted by Democrats and no Republicans, and using those levers that he has that were expressly given to the head of HHS to make wise decisions on how to implement the law as we move forward.

I will tell you, Chairman Price, as a physician with a long history of understanding health care, as a provider of health care for years, as an awesome physician, Tom Price knows the problems, and he will use those same opportunities that exist in the law today. Instead of it being something that would be more difficult for a consumer, more difficult for a person on ObamaCare, more difficult for what might be an employer, more difficult and time consuming for a consumer, more costly to the consumers of this country, but, perhaps worst of all, making it harder to provide better health care for a patient, Tom Price will have that opportunity.

So this is a three-tier process for Republicans, for us to also bring the best ideas. The American people should be checking with their Member of Congress who will be able to understand the Republican alternative. This is great for the American people to know.

We are going to use the levers of laws to change them, to repeal and take back the most onerous parts of ObamaCare, and we are going to work within the law that Mr. Price, as head of HHS, would be able to use exactly the same levers that someone sat there, if they really wanted to fix health care instead of making it harder for someone.

We know that Republicans have better ideas, and that what we want to do is to establish a tax benefit system while allowing the employer- sponsored insurance tax system to remain. That means that every single American will have parity on the opportunity to buy health care on January 1 of every year; that no longer will we find that people lag behind because they can't afford, or it is a rigged system, or they have a disadvantage.

Republicans have an opportunity to level the playing field. This is why Republicans openly in any crowd can say: we have better ideas. We don't have to force anybody. We will invite them to come be a part of what we do. And I guarantee you, more people will flock to our system than fled and ran from ObamaCare, because it has to work for everybody, not just some of us.

The healthcare system that we have today, ObamaCare, literally, young people ran from the system. They could not afford it. But worst of all, they could not pay the high deductible. And if you have such a high deductible, it means, by and large, insurance is useless to you.

So, Mr. Speaker, what Republicans are doing is going to allow a tax benefit system. Republicans are going to make HSAs available as an option, an alternative, so that people have a choice and a chance to buy what they need but not pay for what they don't want. We want an opportunity for them to become consumers. We want them to be a part of a system where it is not use it or lose it, rather, they can only, through their own means and their hard work, roll over perhaps $1,000 a year, $1,000 at 21, $1,000 at 22, $1,000 at 23, and to allow private physicians to make sure they are in the system.

Lastly, as my time is moving forward, I want to say something to each and every American because it seemingly has been a part of the lexicon in my Democrat friends' viewpoint, and it is this: The Republican plan has available to it and, I believe, will accept the rights that were known as under ObamaCare, which were very bipartisan, dependent coverage through age 26--Republican plan, you bet. No lifetime annual limits--Republican plan, absolutely. Modified guarantee availability renewability, just like what was in ObamaCare--you bet we will have that too.

Prohibition on preexisting conditions exclusions--literally, just the same. You have to buy in. And if you don't, then you have a problem. But if you buy in the first time you get a chance, it is an opportunity just like ObamaCare.

Prohibition on discrimination based on health status--absolutely. That is a Republican idea, too. It is not owned by just one party. It is a generally accepted idea and would be a part, should be a part, of a Republican plan, and nondiscrimination and healthcare coverage.

Mr. Speaker, what I have tried to do in this hour is to give the American people and my colleagues the confidence that what lies ahead will be an awesome debate, but it will be done in public. It will be done above board. It will be done where Members of Congress can go back home and explain to people not only what we want to do but be willing to take their own feedback also.

It will be a system that will fix the inequities, the things that were unfair about tax benefits. And it should be, and I hope will be, a system that will be available this next year so that, on January 1 of this next year, as we find the American people wanting eagerly to look at the health care that their families would want and need, that they will find a tax benefit that is consistent with what any other American gets.

Now, the last point I would like to say is a thank you. I would like to say a thank you to some 500 physicians of the National Physicians' Policy Council who have worked through, for 2 years, 9 very large meetings across this country, the last one, the first week of December here in Washington.

Dr. John T. Gill, national co-chairman, and Dr. Marcy Zwelling--Dr. Gill is from Dallas. Dr. Zwelling is from Los Angeles--and our 16 vice chairmen, who have devoted not only hard work but a belief that a healthcare change should be done with physicians, with the people who care about not only patients but care about the system that they would be engaged in, the system of health care in America, that is the greatest system that we know of.

They have sent me hundreds of ideas and hundreds of things which we have openly discussed where we rubbed elbows trying to decide how do we hone

this idea. It has come down to every single American should end up with a better healthcare system than one that was designed that they could not explain and still leaves some 30 million people uninsured in America, and that is called ObamaCare. We should not have a system that demands that a person be on that system or have to pay a huge fine. No. We would want a system where people gleefully came to it, liked their healthcare system, became a consumer, were proud of what they got, and perhaps more importantly, could go to the doctor of their choice instead of calling a number and being assigned or take the person that they were given.

Mr. Speaker, there are lots of ways to get things done in this country, but Republicans have, for years, had better ideas. The idea on health care is one that Republicans are eager--eager--not only to accept this challenge, but eager to say that we are going to work together. Speaker Ryan has pledged himself to our Conference. We have Members of the United States Senate, Mitch McConnell--the other body-- and there are a number of Members, including Dr. Bill Cassidy and Dr. Rand Paul who have come out with their own healthcare bills, ways to attract not just other cosponsors, but their colleagues who are Democrats also.

So I would say tonight to my colleagues: I would like for you to take just a minute to look at the world's greatest healthcare plan. I would like for you to be concerned, instead of the some 12 to 20 million people across the country--everybody has their own congressional district, and there might be a large number in some of their districts. But by and large, the vast number would not be on ObamaCare, and each of our Members owe them a better healthcare system also.

But if we all get together, every single person can have the opportunity to have a nondiscriminatory system where virtually every hospital would take your coverage instead of only a few. ObamaCare is only a few, only a few doctors. And if we work together and form larger team sizes, we can make health care even better for all Americans.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity tonight to talk about not only better ideas to fix health care, but it would be done through a deliberate, disciplined approach, one in which every single Member of this body should be able to describe what they want. If they want to be for ObamaCare and say that only 24 percent of physicians and only a few hospitals will take their plan, then let them stand on that.

But I want to be for a system where virtually every hospital and virtually every doctor would take the healthcare plan that I would like my family to be on and them, also. That is why I stand up tonight and speak favorably about the Republican advantages of where we will head, specifically about the world's greatest healthcare plan that Senator Bill Cassidy and I have cosponsored and, more specifically, that the American people can be sold by every single one of us to make health care work and be better for each and every American.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) for the customary 30 minutes.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to yet another closed rule. Last night in the Rules Committee, there were three thoughtful amendments that were brought forward. They were all germane and all complied with the rules of the House. Yet, once again, the Republicans in the Rules Committee denied each and every one of them.

There is no opportunity for any amendments to be heard here today and no opportunity for there to be a real debate, and I regret that very much. Again, that is the trend that we see in this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I also oppose the underlying bill. I have a fundamental belief that politicians in Washington should not have the right to interfere in the health decisions of a woman; and this deceptively titled bill will do just that. It continues this Republican majority's never-ending crusade against women, and it is an attempt to take away the constitutionally protected right to abortion services for millions of women, especially middle class and low-income women. That is wrong.

Madam Speaker, these healthcare decisions should be made between women and their doctors, not politicians in Washington.

Who the hell are we in this Chamber to make these private and oftentimes painful decisions for women?

Republicans claim that this bill is about codifying the Hyde amendment, which has been around for four decades. That is 40 years too long, in my opinion. But this bill isn't really about the Hyde amendment. Despite what Republicans claim, this extreme and sweeping bill would go even further by placing unprecedented limits on women's access to reproductive health services even if they want to pay for abortion coverage out of their own pockets.

Placing restrictions on how women with private insurance can spend private dollars when purchasing health insurance would radically change our Nation's longstanding policy. It is deeply troubling and must not become law.

Madam Speaker, just days ago during the nationwide Women's March, millions of people gathered all across the country and around the globe to defend women's rights. These marches were likely the single largest day of protest in American history. More than half a

million people took to the streets right here in our Nation's Capital; and I was proud to march with these dedicated men and women, along with my wife and my daughter. My son, I am also proud to say, joined the march in Boston.

The marches were peaceful. Not a single arrest was reported in Washington, D.C. And they were also clear, sending a message to each of us that women's rights are human rights.

But far from respecting those rights, the majority is here today attacking a woman's constitutional right to make her own decisions about her health, her family, and her future.

Despite this dangerous bill passing the Republican-controlled House in previous Congresses, it has traditionally died in the Senate; and I hope the Senate keeps with that tradition.

The ultimate goal of congressional Republicans and of Donald Trump is to overturn Roe v. Wade. Make no mistake about it. They want to take us back to the days of back-alley abortions where women lost their lives. That would be an awful thing to do.

I hope people who believe in upholding a woman's right to choose are watching this debate, and I hope that they are just as outraged as I am by this attempt to roll back women's healthcare rights. I hope they call their Representatives in Congress today to speak out. This is a time for action, and we need all of you to make your voices heard.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article that appeared in The Washington Post: ``Does Obamacare provide federal subsidies for elective abortions?'' It talks about the GAO report, and it basically says that those who claim that it does, they earn three Pinocchios.

[Jan. 26, 2017]

Does Obamacare Provide Federal Subsidies for Elective Abortions?

(By Michelle Ye Hee Lee)

``The president's health-care law authorized massive

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.''--Rep.

Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), House debate, Jan. 22, 2015

The argument that the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a.

Obamacare, provides federal subsidies for abortions came up

several times during the House debate on an antiabortion

bill.

The bill would prohibit using federal funds for any

abortions or for any health plans that cover abortions. Under

Obamacare, federal funds can be used to cover abortions for

pregnancies caused by rape or incest, or that endanger the

mother's life. But no federal subsidies for premiums can be

used for elective abortions. The House debate centered on

whether this restriction is being enforced, and whether

additional protection for taxpayers are needed.

There often is overheated rhetoric in the abortion debate

that cannot be fact-checked. (The Fact Checker previously

examined Democrats' claims following the Hobby Lobby ruling.)

The bill's opponents, who support abortion rights, say the

system works and that the measure would unnecessarily

restrict women's private insurance choices. Lawmakers who

oppose abortion rights don't buy it; they say the system is

just an accounting gimmick. The goal of this fact check is

not to relitigate the debate but to examine evidence to

support the above statement, which was repeated throughout

the debate.

Foxx, one of the lawmakers arguing for the bill, was among

several Republicans who claimed federal subsidies are paying

for elective abortions. Does this accurately portray how

abortions are covered under Obamacare?

The Facts

The House passed H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion

and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015, on the

anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

The bill was a watered-down measure that the House took up at

the last minute after GOP leaders pulled an initial, more

restrictive bill.

Public funding for abortions is intricately structured.

Under the Hyde Amendment, federal funds can't be used for

elective abortions under Medicaid-funded plans. Some states

do pay 100 percent of the cost of elective abortions without

passing on any cost to the federal government.

Under Obamacare, health insurance plans could cover some or

all elective abortions, but they can't use federal tax

credits and subsidies to offset the cost. Insurance providers

that cover elective abortions must charge consumers

separately and deposit the money into a separate account that

contains no federal money. Providers need to bill enrollees

separately for elective abortions by itemizing them

separately in monthly bills or sending separate bills.

States can pass laws to ban or restrict health plans from

providing coverage for elective abortions. In 2014, 23 states

restricted coverage for these procedures. There were 1,036

plans in 28 states that provided some or all coverage for

elective abortions.

In a speech to Congress and a subsequent executive order,

President Obama gave assurances that federal subsidies would

not be used to cover elective abortion services. He ordered

Health and Human Services and the Office of Management and

Budget to issue a guideline for states so they can comply

with billing and funding segregation requirements.

Obama's not keeping his promise, say supporters of H.R. 7.

Staffers for Foxx and two of the other lawmakers who made

similar claims--H.R. 7 sponsor Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and

Rep. Ana Wagner (R-MO.)--pointed to a September 2014

Government Accountability Office report. At the request of

GOP leaders, the GAO examined whether health plans were

following the elective abortion billing requirements.

GAO picked 18 plans in 10 states with no laws restricting

abortion coverage as a non-probability sample representing a

quarter of all health plans that cover elective abortions.

GAO found 17 of 18 issuers were not separately billing

consumers. The one remaining issuer said its bills show there

is a charge ``for coverage of services for which member

subsidies may not be used.''

These issuers did not give blanket coverage for all

abortions. One covered abortions that a health-care provider

determines necessary, and two limited coverage to no more

than one elective abortion a year. All 18 issuers had payment

requirements such as co-pays, deductions and out-of-pocket

costs.

The report did not examine whether the providers were

illegally using federal subsidies to pay for elective

abortion services. In response to the report, HHS released a

new set of regulations to clarify billing and funding

segregation requirements.

Experts say the GAO's findings do not necessarily mean

insurance providers are inappropriately using federal

subsidies to cover abortion services. There is no government

or industry agency tracking insurers' compliance, making it

impossible to know whether providers are following the law,

they said.

``It's really not clear how these different plans are being

operationalized,'' said Alina Salganicoff, Kaiser Family

Foundation's director of women's health policy.

The GAO report found premium amounts collected from

elective abortion services ranged from 51 cents to $1.46 per

enrollee per month. To put this in context, the national

average premium for a 40-year-old person purchasing coverage

through the marketplace was between $224 to $270 per month,

according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. (An earlier, non-

age-specific average monthly estimate was $241.) Even if the

maximum charge ($1.46) was added to the cheapest health plan

($224), the elective abortion surcharge is less than 1

percent of the monthly bill.

The key point made by lawmakers and advocacy groups who

oppose abortion rights is that money is fungible, and that it

doesn't matter exactly how the money is being collected. A

dollar is a dollar, they say, and every dollar paid to an

insurance provider in the marketplace ultimately goes into

collective risk pools that are used to rim government-

subsidized health insurance, so taxpayers are effectively

paying for elective abortions.

``The point is the federal subsidies provided for those

1,036 plans are funding abortion just as much as the private

funds contributed by the individual. That is consistent with

the commonly held understanding that money is fungible and

the funds received by the insurance company are used to pay

all benefits,'' Sheridan Watson, Foxx's communications

director, wrote to The Fact Checker.

The Pinocchio Test

The GAO's report found that the insurers it studied were

not following billing requirements. But experts say that does

not necessarily mean the providers were illegally using

federal subsidies for abortions. Even if they were, Foxx's

statement that Obamacare authorized ``massive'' subsidies is

an exaggeration. Based on the estimates above, abortion

charges would range from 0.2 percent to 0.65 percent of an

enrollee's monthly bill.

The claim that ``hard-earned taxpayer dollars'' are paying

for abortions ``on demand'' implies that taxpayers foot the

abortion bill for any woman who requests one. But in reality,

some providers still imposed their own restrictions on which

abortions to cover, and all 18 issuers had payment

requirements, such as out-of-pocket costs and co-pays.

Lawmakers like Foxx who oppose abortion rights discredit

the billing and funding separation requirement for elective

abortion services. Billing doesn't matter, they say, because

federal tax dollars used for subsidies pay for everything in

a health plan. This is an opinion, and something that can't

be fact-checked. But to say that massive federal subsidies

are paying for abortions on demand is not an accurate

portrayal of this complex issue, and the facts in the GAO

report do not support this argument.

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

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

Let me just clarify for the Record that there is no Federal funding for abortion. All you have to do is read the Hyde amendment, which has been in effect for 40 years. I don't support it, but that is the law of the land.

The majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal. So if you want to talk about polls, the overwhelming number of Americans believe that abortions should be safe and legal.

I also would like to say that while my colleagues are working overtime to try to defund organizations like Planned Parenthood, it is because of Planned Parenthood, the counseling that is provided, and the reproductive services that are provided at their clinics, and contraception, that the number of abortions have decreased in this country.

Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. And if we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation, which I am happy to be a cosponsor of, along with Ms. Eshoo, that would require sitting Presidents and Presidential nominees to disclose their last 3 years of tax returns.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Despite the long tradition of Presidents and Presidential nominees of disclosing their tax returns, Donald Trump has refused to release his, and his spokesperson recently said that he has no intention of doing so. The American people expect and deserve transparency, which this legislation would ensure.

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, between his refusal to release his tax returns and all these business conflicts of interest, this Presidency is on a collision course with corruption.

Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support our effort here.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

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

Madam Speaker, I just would like to assure my colleague from Wyoming that we are not trying to distract when we bring up the issue of the President's tax returns, but we have no opportunity here to be heard. The bill before us, as I mentioned in my opening statement, is a closed rule. It is a Putin rule, if you will, where it is their way or the highway and where no debate is allowed on alternative ideas. We had three thoughtful amendments brought before the Rules Committee last night, all germane, all in compliance with the House rules. They rejected all three of them.

On the issue of the Presidential tax returns, yes, we are bringing it up because the American people want to know whether there are conflicts of interest. They don't want the White House to be known for being a place of corruption. They want our Presidents to follow the rules and the laws of the land. So people want to know, but we have been given no opportunity to do that.

So forgive me if we take procedural motions to try to make our point, but my colleagues on the Republican side lock us out of any opportunity to be heard. The Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die, I am sad to say, and I hope that changes.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), who is the vice chairwoman of the Democratic Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Madam Speaker I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, says this bill has nothing to do with taking away a woman's right to choose. I would beg to differ. I think it has everything to do with taking away a woman's right to choose.

But this is the rule. I was hoping that maybe he would address the fact that, again, three thoughtful amendments were brought before the Committee on Rules yesterday by Democrats. They were all germane. They all comply with the House rules. I was hoping he would explain why they were all denied, especially since the bill before us didn't go through regular order; it didn't go through a committee process to be brought to the floor. This was just kind of plopped into the Committee on Rules, and no amendments were made in order. That is not the way a deliberative body should be run. There are disagreements on this issue, but don't be afraid of allowing opposing viewpoints to be heard on this House floor. But apparently he didn't want to talk about that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).

Madam Speaker, may I ask the gentlewoman from Wyoming if she has additional speakers.

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

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 23 faith-based organizations and communities urging Members to reject H.R. 7; a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union urging Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 7; a letter from 44 women's health, religious, and other advocacy organizations strongly opposed to H.R. 7; and a letter from the American Association of University Women urging Members to oppose

Madam Speaker, let me begin my closing by reminding people that we are about to vote on the rule. The rule defines how we are going to consider this legislation. This is a closed rule. This is a Putin rule. This is a rule that allows no opposing viewpoints to be brought before this Chamber to be debated and voted on. It is completely closed. On top of that, it didn't go through regular order.

Now, I know my colleagues will say, well, it went through regular order in the previous Congress. But there are 55 new Members of the House in this Congress, and I think they have a right to expect regular order from the leadership of this House when legislation is brought to the floor. The rule should be rejected because it is closed.

I would urge my colleagues, even those who may be sympathetic to the underlying legislation to, at some point, stand up to your leadership and say, ``Enough of this closed process.'' Open this place up a little bit. This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world, and yet we do everything but deliberate. At some point, I hope some of my Republican colleagues will be brave enough to stand with us who are calling for a more open process.

I also urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

I also include in the Record an article from Politico entitled, ``Study: Abortion Rate Falls to Record Low.''

[From Politico, Jan. 17, 2017]

Study: Abortion Rate Falls to Record Low

(By Brianna Ehley)

The U.S. abortion rate dipped to its lowest level on record

in 2014, according to a new study by the Guttmacher

Institute.

The abortion rate dropped 14 percent between 2011 and 2014

to 14.6 abortions per 1,000 women, researchers said. During

the same time period, the number of abortions dropped 12

percent to 926,200 in 2014.

Researchers suggested two main reasons for the decline: a

combination of greater access to contraception and less

access to abortion services in states that have enacted new

restrictions.

The number of clinics providing abortions dipped 6 percent

between 2011 and 2014, with the largest declines in access in

the Midwest and the South.

``Abortion restrictions and clinic closures mean that

patients may need to travel greater distances to access

services,'' Rachel Jones, the study's lead author, said in a

statement. ``Some of the abortion rate decline is likely

attributable to women who were prevented from accessing

needed services.''

Madam Speaker, part of the reason for that is because women are having more access to good health care. Part of the reason why that number is getting lower is because of organizations like Planned Parenthood, which provide clinics and counseling and contraception to young women so that we can actually avoid more people being in the situation where they have to confront the issue of abortion. And yet my colleagues' next salvo is going to be going after Planned Parenthood. The abortion rate in this country is going down.

The underlying bill is not about making sure that taxpayer money doesn't go to fund abortion. That is what the Hyde amendment does.

The Affordable Care Act, by the way, makes it clear that no portion of the premium tax credits may be used to pay for the portion of comprehensive health coverage that is purchased in the marketplace that relates to abortion services. That is not what this is about.

This is basically the first attempt to really go after the basic constitutional right for a woman to be able to choose when it comes to abortion services. That is what this is about. The leadership of this House--indeed, the President of the United States--has made it clear they want to repeal Roe v. Wade. They want to put Justices on the Supreme Court who will repeal that decision. They want to pass legislation that will do everything to be able to deny women that basic right. That is what is going on here.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I am asking people to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can actually debate and vote on this issue of requiring Presidential candidates and Presidents to release their tax returns. I say to my colleagues in all sincerity, this President's refusal to release his tax returns, all these conflicts of interest that he has, this is a White House on a collision course with corruption. Donald Trump said he wanted to come to Washington to drain the swamp, but by not releasing his tax returns, by allowing all these conflicts of interest to remain, he is bringing the swamp to the White House. Enough.

Let us vote for transparency here. Let us vote in a way that the majority of Americans think we ought to do, and that is to require this President to come clean, to show us what his tax returns are, to show us what he is hiding, to show us where his investments are, to show us if there are any dealings with Russia or Putin or whatever.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have that opportunity to be able to debate that issue, because if you don't vote ``no,'' I can guarantee you that the Committee on Rules will never make it in order. The Committee on Rules never makes anything in order that the leadership of this House doesn't put its rubber stamp on. I think that that is unfortunate. As I said before, the Committee on Rules is becoming a place where democracy goes to die. It is about time that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle stand up and say, ``Enough. Let's open this place up.''

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

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, these are the faces of innocent and wonderful women like Dakota and Chenoa, who indicate that, if they did not have Planned Parenthood, they would not be able to be where they are today, or Chenoa, who indicated, without Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act, they wouldn't have access to health care.

That is what H.R. 7 intends to do, to deny these young, beautiful women an opportunity. But more importantly, my colleagues on the other side want to suggest they only--they only--have religion and faith. But as a mother, let me say that every child I have loved and every woman who has had a decision to make I have loved and respected for her choice of a faith, her God, and her doctor.

Rather than having this war on women by Republicans, we need to be dealing with the voting rights law. Rather than prohibiting individuals from receiving a refundable tax credit on cost-sharing reductions for purchasing a qualified health plan that encourages coverage for abortions or denying the District of Columbia their rights, we should be standing for rights. This is a constitutional right. It is also a choice by a woman of her God, her doctor, and her family.

Vote against H.R. 7. It is violence against women. It is not helping women or the unborn child.

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

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 2017.''

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 $15.00 per hour so that people who work hard and play by the rules do not have to 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 11th 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 Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki 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 bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, our constituents are looking to this Congress to address the economy, jobs, our crumbling infrastructure, and so many other issues. But despite these pressing needs, the only substantive bill this House is considering this week is a bill restricting a woman's ability to get a full range of healthcare services and a bill, which passed before in this House and that we know is going nowhere in the other body.

Its title alone must be part of the majority's new plan to redefine facts. As we heard the other day, we now apparently have in our discourse ``alternative facts.''

This bill takes that to a whole new level, and let me tell you why. The bill is called the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. But under current law, under the Hyde amendment--which I hate, which I will do everything to repeal--we have no taxpayer funding for abortion. Taxpayer funds are currently prohibited from use for abortions. Instead, what this bill does is it takes that concept and it uses it to far expand a restriction on a woman's ability to get the full health care that she needs.

Let me talk about what this bill does exactly. First of all, it codifies the Hyde amendment into statute, which has never been done in this Nation's history.

Secondly, it codifies a ban on abortions in D.C., even when they are done with D.C.'s taxpayer money and not with Federal money.

Number three, it codifies the Helms amendment, which denies women abroad access to safe abortion care by severely restricting the use of U.S. funds to pay for healthcare services in developing countries.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

It severely restricts abortion coverage in the ACA's exchanges by forbidding people who have plans where they get subsidies from paying for plans with their own money. This is a far expansion of a restriction on a woman's right to get her own health insurance with her own money.

It denies insurance-related tax credits to small businesses that choose plans that offer abortion services. It permanently bans abortion services for Federal employees and it codifies a ban on abortion coverage for women in military services overseas.

The fact that we are debating this today, just 1 day after President Trump issued an executive order reinstating the global gag rule, is a slap in the face to the over 3 million women who marched last weekend.

Let's vote ``no'' on this bill and let's go to the business that the American public really cares about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), one of our new Members.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from Tennessee has attempted to imply that several of our speakers today support the Hyde amendment because they voted for very large omnibus spending bills that included the Hyde amendment. I would like to be really clear that none of the speakers on this side today do support the Hyde amendment, and, in fact, in the last Congress we had a bill, the EACH Woman Act, sponsored by a number of us, 129 cosponsors, which would repeal the Hyde amendment. Sometimes people vote for large pieces of legislation because they do things like keep our government open and build highways and roads. But we will do everything in our power to repeal this poorly thought-out and regressive amendment, and we will do everything we can to defeat this bill today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The gentlewoman from Tennessee keeps saying over and over that different people voted for H.R. 2029 and, therefore, they must be for the Hyde amendment. I would like to point out that she herself voted against H.R. 2029. I guess maybe that means she is against the Hyde amendment since she voted against that bill.

The point I am making is that all of us oppose the Hyde amendment. We are all cosponsoring the EACH Woman Act. Simply because you vote for or against a large omnibus bill does not mean you are necessarily in favor of or against the Hyde amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), another one of our excellent new Members.

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), an activist on this issue.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan), another one of our new, wonderful Members.

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

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

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the fad, apparently, this week, is the idea of alternative facts. In other words, if politicians don't like the facts that they have been given or the reality of the situation, then what we should do is we should just come up with new facts; and apparently, the facts in this bill are that, apparently, the other side is worried about taxpayer funding for abortions.

As we have said repeatedly, we don't like this on this side of the aisle, but right now, because of the annual Hyde amendment, there is no taxpayer funding for abortion. We aim to change that because it is probably the most regressive legislation that we have for women's health.

It says that rich women can get the full range of healthcare services they need, including abortion; but poor women, the women least equipped to be able to raise unwanted children, and certainly not with help from this Congress, are the ones who cannot get those services that they needed.

So I just want to say one more time because I keep hearing the alternative facts over and over, there are right now no taxpayer funding for abortions, something that we need to fix. But this bill takes us the opposite direction. What this bill does is it codifies the Hyde amendment in statute once and for all, and that would bar low- income women from receiving these much-needed services. It codifies the D.C. abortion ban, which would rob the D.C. City Council of giving the healthcare services D.C. women need, even with D.C. tax revenues. It codifies the Helms amendment, which is the same thing as the Hyde amendment for international programs. And perhaps the biggest ban here is it restricts people's ability to buy insurance policies on the healthcare exchanges with their own money that will cover abortion.

I heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle over and over again that there are a thousand policies. The lady from South Dakota said that government dollars were supporting abortive procedures. That is just simply not the case. There is no Federal money in the exchanges paying for abortive procedures.

What this bill does is it greatly expands restrictions on women's ability with their own money to buy insurance policies with legal healthcare coverage that they feel that they need. And it says that if you get a subsidy, then you can't get a policy with your own money. That is a vast expansion, and it is well beyond the pale.

It is also, by the way, beyond what the American public says. Because the American public, by 86 percent, says that if you are poor, then politicians should not put their personal views on you and you should be able to get the healthcare coverage that you need. We saw this with the millions of American women and men in Washington and around the country who marched this last weekend. But we see it in the polling. People say, if you are poor, you should be able to get the healthcare coverage you need, not what some politician in Washington tells you.

I have an idea. Every year, around the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and the time that the protestors come to Washington, I don't think that we should debate this futile exercise year after year. I think we should come together across the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to figure out how we can prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I am getting ready to introduce a bill. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the Republican side, to cosponsor this bill. This bill will expand contraception and family planning services and long-range contraception for all American women so that we can prevent unwanted pregnancies.

In Colorado, we have a program that is called LARC. And what it is is a program where the State helps teen and young women get long-acting contraception so they can prevent unwanted pregnancies. And here is what happened in Colorado when we enacted this very robust and helpful program. According to the data from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, both the birth rate and abortion rate for women ages 15 to 19 fell 48 percent from 2009 to 2014 because of long-acting contraception, and the same was true for women of the next age group up.

We can do this. We can do this together. Let's start talking about a way to improve women's health instead of to restrict their choices. Vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived bill.

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

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 2017''!

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 $15.00 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 7 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 Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki 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. Coloyal 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.