Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions.

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.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 55 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 55, which provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. This bipartisan bill will codify and make permanent what is commonly referred to as the Hyde amendment and expand Hyde amendment restrictions to all Federal agencies.

First offered in 1976, the Hyde amendment prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions through government programs like Medicaid. These restrictions have been maintained for more than 40 years through the annual appropriations process, including the most recent continuing resolution passed last December. It is time that these important protections against the use of taxpayer funding to pay for abortion be made permanent.

A GAO report in 2014 found that, under ObamaCare, over 1,000 insurance plans covered elective abortion. Those plans are purchased with taxpayer subsidies. H.R. 7 would stop this and make ObamaCare conform to the Hyde amendment. If the Hyde amendment had been applied to ObamaCare, as President Obama promised it would be, the number of federally subsidized plans with elective abortion coverage would have been zero.

As we work to repeal and replace the deeply flawed ObamaCare, we need to ensure taxpayer subsidies are not used to pay for abortion coverage.

According to a Marist Poll conducted last July, 62 percent of respondents--a majority of the women asked--and including 45 percent of those who identify as pro-choice do not support taxpayer funding for abortions. H.R. 7 simply codifies and makes permanent a protection against the use of taxpayer funding for abortion that the majority of Americans and certainly a majority of my constituents in Wyoming support.

Therefore, I urge support for the rule to allow consideration of H.R. 7.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

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

I would just note that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have referred several times now to the massive turnout for the women's march here, and we, ourselves, will be having, I am sure, a very large turnout this week; as well as I would like to point out that that women's march excluded groups that were pro-life women's groups. And so the notion that somehow it was reflective of all women in this Nation is fundamentally misleading.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the cosponsor of this bill who has done tremendous work.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

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

Madam Speaker, it is no surprise that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather talk about just about anything besides the text and the substance of the rule and the bill that we are about to consider.

The transparency that is important to this debate and that is relevant for this discussion today is transparency that is in the rule and in this bill that would require that insurance companies make sure that people understand what they are purchasing and whether or not they are purchasing a plan that will, in fact, provide abortion coverage.

I also just want to note that although there may be some in this Chamber who view The Washington Post Fact Checker as the oracle and font of all wisdom, he got this one wrong, as he has in many cases, and, in fact, failed to understand that there are, as we meet here today, monthly advanced payments of U.S. taxpayer funding going to insurance companies or to exchanges to pay for health insurance plans that subsidize abortion on demand.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to make a point in terms of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the constant reference to women, women, women, as though all women believe what they believe.

They have very strongly held views on the other side of the aisle, but the notion that somehow all women can be categorized as being pro- abortion is just simply wrong and, frankly, offensive to those of us who have different views.

Madam Speaker, I would like to say, at this point in time, that we are not making any kind of a dangerous attack on women's rights.

My colleagues have accused us of being relentless. We are relentless. We are relentless, Madam Speaker. We are relentless in defense of the unborn, the most vulnerable among us.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

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

Madam Speaker, under the Constitution, all funds for the District of Columbia are appropriated by the United States Congress, so we in the Congress bear a particular and additional responsibility for funds in the District of Columbia.

I would also note, Madam Speaker, that there are no limitations in the District of Columbia on when an abortion can be performed; and therefore, if we were to lift this amendment, if we were not to have this rule in place, you could potentially have the U.S. taxpayers in a situation where they were being forced to fund even late-term abortions in the District of Columbia, which is fundamentally against the Hyde amendment, fundamentally against everything that we have supported and against the majority of the people in this Nation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

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

I am really heartened today, Madam Speaker, to hear so much concern from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about making sure that patients and individuals have the right to make decisions about their own health care. I would expect, then, to see support from the other side of the aisle when we are in a position where we are putting in place our replacement for ObamaCare. That is one of the main reasons we are repealing ObamaCare, getting the government out of the business of telling people what they can and can't have with respect to their own health care. That is not the issue that we are debating here today, however, Madam Speaker.

I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his tireless work on this issue and for introducing this bipartisan bill. A majority of Americans across the country share the view that we must continue to work to protect the lives of mothers and their unborn children. As you have already heard, Madam Speaker, the Hyde amendment is responsible for saving the lives of at least 2 million babies, the most vulnerable among us.

Codifying a permanent restriction on the use of taxpayer funding for abortions is long overdue. I urge adoption of both the rule and H.R. 7 so we can continue to protect and save lives.

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