Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the American Health Care Act was pulled from the House floor in March because the American people realized it was a deeply flawed bill. That bill would have ripped healthcare coverage away from 24 million of our constituents.

For those lucky enough to maintain coverage, the bill would have massively raised premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs. The crushing age tax in this bill would force older adults to pay astronomically high premiums.

So what did the majority do in the last 6 weeks? They made the bill worse.

The MacArthur amendment lets States opt out of the essential benefits of the ACA. Not only would this jeopardize insurance availability for the one-third of Americans who have preexisting conditions, it would let insurance companies deny coverage altogether for maternity, for emergency room, for mental health, and for other essential benefits. And because the MacArthur amendment eliminates community ratings, everybody's insurance costs would skyrocket.

I am going to tell you something. My Republican colleagues are going to be really, really sorry that they rushed this bill to the floor before they got an amended CBO score. The reason is, when we do get this--and make no mistake, we will get this--they are going to find out that many more millions of people besides the 24 million people, originally, who are going to lose their insurance are going to be shocked to wake up to find out, if this TrumpCare bill passes, many millions more will lose their coverage.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this poorly conceived legislation.

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago today, Colorado blazed a trail for the rights of women and girls when it became the first state to loosen restrictions on legal abortions. Until then, the procedure was available only if the woman's life was at stake.

The new law allowed an abortion if the woman's physical or mental health was threatened, if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, or if the child might have serious birth defects.

Mr. Speaker, this was seven years before the U.S. Supreme Court would affirm a woman's constitutional right to choose in Roe v. Wade. Today, polling consistently shows that seven in 10 Americans do not believe that Roe should be overturned. But back in 1967, allowing any loosening of the near-absolute ban on abortion was a risky move from a political point of view.

A freshman Colorado state lawmaker, Richard Lamm, decided the risk was worth it, even if it meant the end of his career. After introducing the bill, he worked State Senator John Bermingham and many others to persuade the overwhelmingly male and Republican-dominated legislature to pass it. Within weeks, Republican Governor John Love signed it into law.

The year before, only 10 abortions had been reported to Colorado's health department. During the eight months remaining in 1967 after the bill was signed, 120 abortions were reported--including for a 12-year- old girl who had been raped. Without that law, her only recourse would have been either a back-alley procedure or carrying the pregnancy to term.

Within the next three years, 11 other states emulated Colorado, while four others loosened restrictions on legal abortions even more.

Rather than see his career come to an end, Richard Lamm went on to serve three terms as Colorado's governor. Now age 81, he's the co- director of the University of Denver's Institute of Public Policy Studies.

Mr. Speaker, as a leader in women's reproductive rights, I am proud to hail from the state that, half a century ago, led the way in giving women and girls more control over their own bodies. It's thanks to enlightened people

with courage and conviction like Richard Lamm that such progress can be made.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution because it would remove consumers' right to control their online privacy and put it in the hands of corporations.

Every time people go online, they create trails of data that have tremendous commercial value. This creates incentive for the ISPs to sell web history to a third party, be it an advocacy group, a for- profit company, or even a foreign government.

Late last year, the FCC put Americans in charge of how ISPs use and share their consumer data. The FCC's rule also required that the ISPs engage in reasonable data security practices.

Even if people believe that the FCC's rule went too far and should be modified, it is unclear how the FCC could move forward with such a plan given the constraints of the Congressional Review Act. Furthermore, as several people have mentioned, the FCC, which is charged with protecting consumers' privacy, does not even have the authority to oversee ISP practices.

Given the number of data breaches in recent years at companies such as Yahoo, we should, frankly, be strengthening data retention requirements, not weakening them. At its core, S.J. Res. 34 weakens consumer protections today and makes them harder to implement in the future, which is why I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump promised his healthcare plan would be ``much better health care at a much lower cost.'' Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price even promised ``nobody will be

worse off financially.'' In reality, of course, the TrumpCare bill will leave just about everybody worse off, with less care at a higher cost.

This bad bill would rip health insurance money away from millions of people--24 million over 10 years, and 14 million next year alone.

Americans who are lucky enough to hold on to coverage if this bill becomes law will pay more for it in premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs, especially people age 50 and up.

Mr. Speaker, the deals that were cut last night to win more Republican votes for TrumpCare would be even more devastating. Trips to the emergency room, mental health and substance abuse treatment, maternity care both before and after birth, prescription drugs, lab tests, and more essential services could be cut.

Apparently, some people don't think these services deserve guaranteed health insurance. They would let insurers sell skimpy plans that don't even cover patients' basic needs.

Democrats believe we can, and should, work together to improve the ACA, not to work on a misguided bill that would gut it.

We owe this to folks like Amanda Miller of Denver. Amanda changed jobs last year. During her period of unemployment, she and her husband decided the smart thing to do was to get coverage to fill the gap. Thank God they did.

Shortly after that, she and her husband got into a serious car accident. Amanda walked away unscathed, but her husband was badly injured. She could see more of his skull than she could see of his scalp. Luckily, there were some nurses in a car behind them, and they stabilized him and took him to the emergency room.

Their hospital bill of $16,000 was paid in full, thanks to Amanda's coverage through the ACA. What do we say to Amanda? Can we guarantee her better insurance and a better financial situation? I don't think so.

Let's defeat this bill, and let's start working towards a good one that will cover everybody.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, we are not even a full month into the new Presidency. Yet, the President and the Republicans in Congress have already launched numerous attacks on women's health and access to care. Here's just a few of the examples aside from today.

They are charging ahead to dismantle the Affordable Care Act without making any promises to preserve the vital protections for women that are in that bill.

They imposed and dramatically expanded the global gag rule, which harms women's access to health care around the world.

And just after the historic Women's March, House Republicans passed H.R. 7, an extreme bill that effectively bans private insurance companies from covering comprehensive healthcare services.

But here we are again today, with another bill that threatens access to family planning care for millions of our most vulnerable citizens by attacking title X. Title X is the only Federal program dedicated solely to family planning, which includes a range of services that help women and their partners prepare for pregnancy and ensure healthy spacing between births.

Title X helps 4 million people who are uninsured. Title X centers also play an important role in reducing unintended pregnancy, and title X centers are also major points of access in our safety net.

Six in 10 women who go to a title X center consider it their major source of health care. What this rule that Republicans want to roll back does is it simply reinforces longstanding requirements that say that States cannot discriminate against providers for reasons that are unrelated to their qualifications to perform family planning services when distributing title X funding. In other words, if an organization provides abortions with its own private money but it qualifies for title X, it can still get that funding.

Now I keep hearing from my colleagues that this violates states' rights, but that completely ignores how Federal programs work. Virtually all Federal funding opportunities require a State to adhere to certain standards to ensure policy goals are met, and that is exactly what this rule did.

Republicans will also argue that community health centers can fill all the gaps created and accessed by denying these centers title X funding. This claim has been debunked on numerous occasions.

For example, in 21 percent of counties with a Planned Parenthood center, Planned Parenthood is the only safety net provider in the area. That is why the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated, if Planned Parenthood were defunded, as many as 390,000 women would lose access to care, and 650,000 women would have reduced access. That is why repealing this rule is a serious problem.

Just this afternoon I read a quote, and here's what it said: ``Patients and doctors should be making the big decisions--not government bureaucrats.''

Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Let me say that again. ``Patients and doctors should be making the big decisions--not government bureaucrats.''

Who said this?

Margaret Sanger? No.

Cecile Richards? No.

Hillary Clinton? No.

The person who said this this afternoon is the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan. I couldn't agree with him any more when it comes to title X family planning money. This should be made by patients and their doctors, not by bureaucrats in Washington.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel), the chair of the Democratic Women's Working Group.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the other side is reserving its time to close. Is that correct?

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Madam Speaker, we hear today this really isn't about denying women and families access to family planning and birth control because States would just simply take that title X money and put it somewhere else. Unfortunately, this seems to be a bit of magical thinking. Even the Congressional Budget Office said that as many as 390,000 women would lose access to care and 650,000 women would have reduced access if legislation like this passed.

The fact of the matter is you can't simply shift all of these people from title X family planning centers like Planned Parenthood to community health centers, as the other side asserts. For one thing, 69 percent of the community health centers actually refer patients to family planning providers like Planned Parenthood, and only 19 percent of community health centers report that their largest sites both prescribe and dispense all types of contraceptive methods. Only half of community health centers that received title X funding provide IUDs and other types of long-acting birth control, the most effective type of birth control, so you can't just shift everybody else someplace else.

In fact, the National Association of Community Health Centers itself said that they could not treat all of the patients that Planned Parenthood now has if this legislation went through. Let's just call this joint resolution what it is. It is an attempt to take away important family planning resources from the women and families of America.

Now, I think if we all support title X when the annual appropriations bill comes up this year, I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to please join me and my colleagues in an effort to increase title X funding. In all the years I have been in Congress, I have seen attempt after attempt not only to reduce abortion availability, but also to stop family planning services. I think that is something we could agree with on, and I think we could do that.

So in the meantime, let's make sure that the women of America can get access to the family planning they need, and let's continue to give family planning money to all of these interests to do that.

Again, I would like to reiterate, we have no family funding for abortions. That is the law. I don't like the law, but that is the law. We are talking about family planning and title X. That needs to be preserved and enhanced. Vote ``no'' on this joint resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions Gary Andres has made to the House of Representatives.

Gary most recently served as the Staff Director for the Committee on Energy and Commerce under the leadership of Congressman Fred Upton. In his last term as Chairman, Congressman Upton partnered with me to author the 21st Century Cures Act. I got to know Gary very well over nearly three years as we worked to pass the bill into law.

It was a real pleasure working with Gary. Even at the darkest moments, when we couldn't seem to find a way to come to a bipartisan agreement on Cures, Gary's steady leadership and immutable resolve helped to light the way forward. His wise counsel is one of the reasons that bill was enacted into law. Although he is leaving Capitol Hill, the 21st Century Cures Act stands as a testament to his immeasurable contributions to this body.

Gary is a person of integrity and an incredibly effective staffer. The American people were lucky to have his service with the House of Representatives.

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 demand a recorded vote.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 511, the Power And Security Systems, or PASS, Act. As Chairman Upton said, this bill will provide an important technical exemption for certain security and life safety products from energy efficiency standards set forth in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

As Mr. Upton said, a provision in the law increased the energy efficiency requirements for battery chargers and external power supplies, something which this side of the aisle very strongly supported. However, the provision also mistakenly included security and life safety products and required that they be manufactured with a standby mode despite being products that are inherently always on.

Without providing this correction, the security industry will need to spend millions of dollars to comply with an energy standard that will yield no energy savings and could cost jobs, which, of course, was never the original intent of the law.

I am pleased that my colleagues Representatives Welch and Brooks have reintroduced the bill, which the House passed last year but the Senate failed to move before the end of the last Congress.

This is a commonsense and consensus fix to a simple problem. The language was developed by both industry and efficiency advocates, with technical assistance from the Department of Energy. It should come as no surprise that this bill enjoys broad support from the security industry and energy efficiency advocates. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I urge passage of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo my support for this important piece of legislation.

This bill was passed last year on a bipartisan basis on a voice vote, in fact, but it was never taken up in the other body. This is becoming kind of a theme today. But, as Mr. Kennedy pointed out, if we can't move this through Congress in the next few weeks, families and small businesses may be left with electric bills that they cannot afford. So what we are really doing today is we are cleaning up some of the leftover important legislation from the last Congress that really needs to pass.

Mr. Upton and I worked hard, along with Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Welch and many other Members, on the 21st Century Cures bill last Congress. It was one of the last bills we passed on a bipartisan basis. I am happy that the Energy and Commerce Committee is getting a running start today in passing some of our key bipartisan legislation from last Congress, and I am hoping that this will be a bellwether for the rest of this Congress that we will continue in the grand tradition of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. And I hope that the Senate will work quickly so that we can send this important bill to the President's desk and we can stop those unanticipated rate increases.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 590, the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act of 2017, introduced by Representatives Latta and McNerney.

This bill would enhance coordination between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy by requiring them to enter into a memorandum of understanding on issues related to advanced nuclear reactor technology.

This is a worthy goal, as the chairman said, and is a commonsense way for the Federal Government to support the advanced nuclear power industry. Advanced nuclear technologies have the potential to generate power more safely and with less nuclear waste, which is why I believe the Federal Government should be supporting advancements in nuclear technology.

The bill also requires NRC to develop an advanced reactor regulatory framework to evaluate options to expedite advanced reactor licensing and to make it more predictable. NRC would have 1 year from the date of enactment to submit this plan to Congress. In developing the plan, NRC must also seek input from interested stakeholders, which I believe to be a crucial part of this process.

Nuclear energy must play a continued role in our country's clean energy future to enable us to reach our goals set forth in the Paris climate agreement. I believe the Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act will enable the Federal Government to more efficiently evaluate and support these promising nuclear technologies, which can put us on a path towards greater reductions in carbon emissions.

I commend both Representatives Latta and McNerney for introducing this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe we have any further speakers on this, so I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise today to urge the passage of H.R. 518, the EPS Improvement Act.

Last session of Congress, I cosponsored this bill with our former colleague Congresswoman Ellmers, and this year, Representatives Guthrie, Matsui, and Dent are joining me in this effort to strengthen the standards used to keep LED lighting safe and efficient.

By ensuring that our country's energy conservation standards are up to date with the latest developments in high-tech lighting, we can remove obstacles to innovation without sacrificing safety. And as we heard from the chairman, if there has ever been a bill in Congress that was vetted, it was this one.

We have been working on this bill for some years now, and, frankly, what it is doing is it is truly addressing unintended consequences that happened due to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That act defined external power supplies in a way that just simply did not anticipate the rapid growth and use of LED and OLED light sources during the decade that followed.

Now, these lights are really energy efficient. They are up to 80 percent more efficient than traditional lights like fluorescent and incandescent lights, and 90 percent of the energy in LEDs is committed to illumination, while only 5 percent is heat; so it is no wonder they have become so popular in the last 10 years. Unfortunately, in the 2005 act, the standards did not allow for these types of lighting as their use continues to constitute an ever-growing share of our energy consumption.

What this bill does is it clarifies the definition of ``external power supplies'' and it amends the conditions under which the Energy Department can undertake a rulemaking process in the future. The bill will facilitate the continued growth of LED lighting, and it will help lower energy prices for businesses and households both in my home State of Colorado and across America.

Clean energy truly is the future. It can be safe, efficient, and affordable for all when it is properly regulated, and that is exactly what this legislation does.

I urge everybody to support this act, and I hope that the Senate will pass it this year. We are getting a good, early start.

Mr. Speaker, I have no one else to speak on this bill, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the horrific ongoing brutality of ISIL and mourn the senseless loss of life in the Middle East.

Just yeterday, the United States confirmed the death of Kayla Mueller, the fourth American to die while a hostage of ISIL. Ms. Mueller had dedicated her young life to serving the struggling people of Syria as they endure a civil war and violence from many sides.

In recent weeks, we have also learned of the murder of two Japanese citizens, Kenji Goto and Haruna Yukawa, and Jordanian Air Force Pilot Lt. Muath Al-Kaseasbeh. These most recent casualties join American, British, and Russian captives as victims of ISIL's deranged ideology. All these victims, and their families, will be in our thoughts and prayers.

As co-chair of the Congressional Study Group on Japan, I was especially appalled that ISIL executed the Japanese captives in response to Japan pledging non-military aid to support the victims of ISIL's terror. Millions of Iraqi and Syrian refugees are in desperate need of assistance, and I applaud Japan for standing with the United States and a coalition of nations committed to confronting ISIL's barbarity.

The continued murder of foreign captives and the ongoing atrocities committed against tens of thousands of Iraqis and Syrians are a stark reminder that we cannot allow ISIL to continue unchecked. Instead, as international community we must remain united in our resolve to stop this evil and help work toward a stable, peaceful Middle East.

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So this compromise is being honored by the administration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

g. Segregation of Funds for Abortion Services

(Sec. 156.280)

Section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act and Sec. 156.280

specify accounting and other standards for issuers of QHPs

through the Exchange in the individual market that cover

abortion services for which public funding is prohibited

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

statute and regulations establish that unless otherwise

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

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

QHP sold through the individual market Exchange, the issuer

must take certain steps to ensure that no premium tax credit

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

abortion services for which public funding may not be used.

We are providing guidance on an individual market Exchange

issuer's responsibilities with respect to requirements

related to QHP coverage of abortion services for which public

funding is prohibited. HHS works with stakeholders, including

States and issuers, to help them fully understand and follow

the statutes and regulations governing the provision of

health insurance coverage under a QHP through the Exchange.

As is the case with many provisions in the Affordable Care

Act, States and State insurance commissioners are the

entities primarily responsible for implementing and enforcing

the provisions in section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act

related to individual market QHP coverage of nonexcepted

abortion services. OPM may issue guidance related to these

provisions for multi-State plan issuers.

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

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

Exchange issuers must collect a separate payment from each

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

abortions for which public funding is prohibited. However,

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

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

separate payment requirement. This provision may be satisfied

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

limited to: sending the enrollee a single monthly invoice or

bill that separately itemizes the premium amount for

nonexcepted abortion services; sending a separate monthly

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

or soon after the time of enrollment that the monthly invoice

or bill will include a separate charge for such services and

specify the charge. Section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act

permits, but does not require a QHP issuer to separately

identify the premium for non-excepted abortion services on

the monthly premium bill in order to comply with the separate

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

excepted abortion services and for all other services in a

single transaction, with the issuer depositing the funds into

the issuer's separate allocation accounts as required by

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

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

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

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

for individual market Exchange issuers with respect to how

much they must charge each QHP enrollee for coverage of

abortions for which public funding is prohibited. A QHP

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

determined on an average actuarial basis, for including

coverage of non-excepted abortion services. In making this

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

coverage for non-excepted abortion services to be less than

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

must charge each QHP enrollee a minimum premium of one dollar

per month for coverage of non-excepted abortion services.

Statement of Administration Policy

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

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

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

would intrude on women's reproductive freedom and access to

health care; increase the financial burden on many Americans;

unnecessarily restrict the private insurance choices that

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

use of local funds, which undermines home rule. Longstanding

Federal policy prohibits the use of Federal funds for

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

life of the woman would be endangered. This prohibition is

maintained in the Affordable Care Act and reinforced through

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

beyond these safeguards by interfering with consumers'

private health care choices. The Administration strongly

opposes legislation that unnecessarily restricts women's

reproductive freedoms and consumers' private insurance

options.

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

advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, this bill purports to solve a problem that does not exist.

The Republicans keep claiming that this provision of the Affordable Care Act is affecting workers' hours, but despite these claims and despite a lot of anecdotal evidence that I have heard from the business community, the labor and employment experts have detected no such impact.

In fact, our economy has created 10.8 million new jobs since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Almost 10 million of those jobs are full-time jobs.

What this proposal would actually do is put more workers into the kind of jeopardy that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they are trying to prevent.

Only 7 percent of Americans work in jobs that place them close to the current 30-hour-a-week threshold. Far more Americans--about 44 percent of them--actually work 40 hours a week, so even slight changes to their work schedules are going to deny them access to the health insurance that they so desperately need.

I have been sitting here. I am really touched by the concern that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have for women and for young people, people who really are at the lower end of the employment spectrum and who the Republicans say are going to be harmed by this.

Let me tell you, for the 4 percent of the large corporations that are subject to these provisions of the Affordable Care Act--people who have 50 employees or more--here is the way it is going to work for the young people and for the women.

These people are going to be people working for large corporations, making just barely above minimum wage. If they work 40 hours a week, they get insurance.

Under this proposal, all their employer has to do is cut 1 hour a week out of that--39 hours a week--and suddenly they lose their health insurance. And that is what is going to put those people at risk. Those women in clerical jobs, women with little kids, those young people in their twenties coming into the job market, trying to do the right thing and have health insurance, now they are going to have to pay for that insurance out of their own pockets, and for no reason.

The consequences of this misguided proposal don't stop there. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 30 would raise the deficit by $53 billion in the next decade while also keeping a million American workers from getting health insurance through their jobs.

I actually agree with my friend from Illinois (Mr. Roskam). I think the intentions behind this bill are good intentions. But I think the effect of this bill is going to be to deny insurance for a whole lot of Americans who are at risk--women and young people, exactly the people we should be giving insurance to.

Vote ``no.''