Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Barb Lutz. Barb has spent her entire adult life faithfully serving our military as a Federal civil service employee, primarily at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, as well as in Europe.

Barb has held numerous positions at the base and is currently the executive assistant to the commander of the 20th Air Force and Task Force 214 at F.E. Warren. She is responsible for providing the commander and vice commander with executive support, as well as serving as protocol specialist for the headquarters staff.

After a distinguished 43-year career, Barb is retiring this week. When Barb's current and former coworkers at F.E. Warren reached out to me about recognizing her, General Cotton best summed up how her colleagues feel about her when he said: ``We all know Barb is a national treasure.''

I want to thank Barb for all she has done for Wyoming and for the country over her 43-year career, and I wish Barb and her family the best in retirement.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of charges and allegations being made about what this bill would do, and the reality, Mr. Speaker, is we are living today in the world that they have created on the other side of this aisle. We are living today in a world with skyrocketing costs, plummeting choices, and broken promises across the board.

When you talk about the situation with respect to women in particular, when you talk about what is going to happen with maternity care and with child care, Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental difference between what they believe on that side of the aisle and what we believe over here.

What we believe over here is that every American--every individual, and in that, we Republicans include women--we think women ought to have the right to make their own choices and their own decisions about care. We know that the kinds of insurance--the so-called insurance--that has been provided under ObamaCare means that women have been denied access to things like maternity care. When you can only get a policy with a $6,000 deductible, that is not care and that is not insurance.

This bill today is fundamental to being able to keep our promises to the American people, to being able to ensure that we have returned authority, we have returned power, and, yes, resources into the hands of individuals so people in Wyoming--in my home State--and all across this country can make their own healthcare decisions and no longer be forced to purchase things they don't want, don't need, and can't use to get coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado and my colleague from Maryland for their support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced H.R. 648 so that we could begin the work necessary to increase the active storage capacity of the Fontenelle Reservoir. As a headwater State, Wyoming takes care of its water, and we know that water is our most important natural resource. Water uses currently at this dam span the gamut from irrigation, domestic, industrial, municipal, fish and wildlife, and recreation. Power generation is a secondary purpose at the dam, and current uses also include industrial capacity for our trona miners, fertilizer producers, and fulfillment of a range of energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would simply authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to enter into a cooperative agreement with the State of Wyoming so that we could begin the process to study, design, and construct increased capacity for the reservoir. This is a process, Mr. Speaker, that has been held up previously by onerous NEPA requirements, and we need to move quickly so that we can begin to increase this capacity.

Currently the reservoir has 265,000 acre-feet to accommodate water as active capacity. This legislation would potentially add an additional 80,000 acre-feet of existing reservoir space. This bill would provide an affordable and efficient way to add more usable storage in the Colorado River Basin

and would accomplish these goals without contemplating the construction of a new dam. The bill has the support of the Wyoming Water Development Office and the Wyoming Water Development Commission, which develops our State's water resources for conservation, storage, distribution, recreation, and other public interests. Our Governor Matt Mead included this concept in the 2015 Wyoming water strategy.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will empower Wyoming to better utilize our water allocation and improve our water storage, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend and former Member of this House, John Wold, of Casper, Wyoming, who passed away on February 19. Congressman Wold was a member of the Greatest Generation serving as a naval engineer during World War II. He also served Wyoming in our State legislature and as our Member of Congress. He was a leader and pioneer in the energy field, and he made numerous contributions, along with his incomparable wife, Jane, to our civic life and as a philanthropist.

I knew John my whole life. The friendship between our families goes back even farther. John was the oldest living former Member of Congress, and I was honored to receive his advice and counsel over the years.

I will never forget attending his 100th birthday this past summer in Casper and seeing the joy it brought him to be surrounded by so many of his wonderful children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

We will miss him, but the impact Congressman Wold had on our State and our Nation and the legacy of leadership and honor he leaves behind will continue to be an inspiration for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 174 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. 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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 174, which provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 1301, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal 2017. I would like to thank, in particular, Chairman Frelinghuysen, Chairman Granger, and Ranking Member Visclosky for their hard and dedicated work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have no higher obligation as elected representatives of the people of this great Republic than ensuring for the security and defense of our Nation. We are gathered here at a tremendous time of action and achievement across an array of crucial policy areas, regulatory relief for the citizens and businesses of our Nation, restoration of authority to our States and local communities, tax reform, ObamaCare repeal and replacement, and the list goes on.

President Trump is doing what he promised during his campaign, and it is an honor to serve the people of Wyoming at this historic moment. But, Mr. Speaker, it is no exaggeration to say that if we fail to provide the resources our military needs to defend our Nation, if we fail to do what is necessary to ensure America's Armed Forces remain superior to all others in the world, if we fail to provide the support our men and women in uniform need to recover from 8 years of devastating policies, nothing else we are doing in this body will matter.

Mr. Speaker, the need is urgent. As we meet today to debate the 2017 Defense appropriation, our Nation faces a more complex and grave threat environment than we have faced at anytime since World War II, and possibly, Mr. Speaker, more than at anytime in our history. For 8 years, our adversaries' strength has grown, while our relative capabilities have stagnated and, in some instances, declined.

North Korea continues its ballistic missile launches as it threatens our allies and interests.

The Iranian nuclear agreement has bought time for Iran to continue to advance its nuclear weapons program, as it reaps the windfall of at least $1 trillion of U.S. taxpayer funds provided to it by the Obama administration. Iran continues to threaten U.S. naval vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, support terrorism across the Middle East, and test ballistic missiles despite its U.N. obligations.

China is rapidly building up its military, and it is targeting, in particular, technologies to try to level the playing field with our capabilities. It continues to threaten freedom of navigation and trade in the South China Sea, and to conduct cyber operations against the United States.

Russia has invaded Ukraine, threatens Eastern Europe and the Baltics, is violating INF Treaty obligations, and openly threatening the use of nuclear weapons.

Al-Qaida today exists in more counties than ever before, and ISIS continues to recruit and hold territory as it plans and launches attacks against the West.

Most of the actors I just mentioned are also responsible for cyber attacks against the United States.

Against this backdrop, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. military is vastly under-resourced. At a recent House Armed Services Committee hearing, the vice chief of staff of the Army told members that of the 58 brigade combat teams, only three are ready to ``fight tonight.'' The vice chief of naval operations, Admiral William Moran, recently testified that more than half of all Navy aircraft are grounded due to maintenance issues and an inability to acquire the necessary parts. Our nuclear force is aging, even as our adversaries continue to make advancements in their own nuclear forces and capabilities. Our Air Force is the oldest, smallest, and least ready it has ever been.

These stories and shortfalls, Mr. Speaker, exist across nearly every aspect of our military. America's fighting men and women are the greatest fighting force and the greatest force for good our world has ever known. They deserve the resources to do their job.

We have prevailed over great challenges in the past, from our unlikely and miraculous founding, through our Civil War, two world wars, the Cold War, and the early years of the war on terror. We must, Mr. Speaker, marshal our forces to do so again. To prevail, Congress-- this Congress--must do its job.

That job begins with passing this 2017 Defense Appropriations bill. Then, Mr. Speaker, we must repeal the Budget Control Act and end sequestration. There is a rational and responsible way for us to undertake defense budgeting. The process in place today is neither.

The last time our military was able to assess the threats we face and then recommend the necessary funding levels to defeat those threats was fiscal year 2011, over 6 years ago. We must return to this standard budgeting process. In describing the effects of sequestration several years ago, our current Defense Secretary put it this way: ``No foe in the field can wreak such havoc on our security as mindless sequestration is achieving today.'' We must end this practice with all speed.

This should not be a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker. It has not been in our past. Since World War II, every American President, Republican and Democrat alike, has understood the importance of American military superiority of ensuring a world in which America and our allies set the rules.

Threatened by the Nazis and the Japanese, Franklin Roosevelt and George C. Marshall knew America had to be the ``arsenal of democracy.'' At the beginning of the Cold War, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy roused the Nation to defeat freedom and liberty against communism. John F. Kennedy knew America had to be ``the watchmen on the walls of freedom.'' In the 1980s, President Reagan oversaw the defense buildup we are still benefiting from today. He knew that ``war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, it is when they are weak that tyrants are tempted.'' And in the aftermath of 9/11, it was George Bush and Dick Cheney who kept us safe, who knew we could not win this war on defense, who understood we had to have a military strong and capable enough to deny terrorists the safe havens from which they plot and plan and launch attacks against our fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, now it is our turn. Across the globe, our adversaries challenge us, from China to North Korea, to Iran, to Russia; across the Middle East, in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Thirty-four years ago, Ronald Reagan described our duty at another time, against another enemy, this way:

It is up to us in our time to choose, and choose wisely,

between the hard but necessary task of preserving peace and

freedom, and the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly

hope for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger

day by day.

Mr. Speaker, we can no longer ignore our duty while our enemies grow stronger. We must take the first step today to begin rebuilding our military. H.R. 1301 is that first step. It increases defense spending, provides a full pay raise for our servicemen and -women, and begins to address our readiness shortfalls. This bill provides funds based on our military's priorities for fiscal year 2017 and gets us off the cycle of continuing resolutions, which are doing real damage to our readiness and capacity.

Therefore, I urge support for the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 1301, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the vice chairman of the Rules Committee.

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

What is incomprehensible to me is that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem so fundamentally confused about what the actual issue before us today is. The issue before us today is whether or not this House is going to undertake its fundamental, most important, most sacred obligation under our Constitution and provide for the defense of this Nation.

Now, they can choose to dedicate their time to another very important topic. It is a hugely important topic and one that we will have many days to debate and discuss on this floor. Unlike under the previous leadership, Speaker Pelosi, our leadership, Speaker Ryan, has not told us we have to pass the bill before we know what is in it.

Today, the issue before us in this House is whether or not we are going to provide for the defense of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

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

I would say that not knowing what they are talking about is something with which our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are quite familiar. Accounts of public input really bear little

relationship to what actually happened when ObamaCare itself was drafted in the dark of night.

Imagine what it must be like if you are tuning in to this conversation and this discussion thinking that the U.S. House of Representatives is taking up the rule to debate, discuss, and pass our FY17 Defense Appropriations. Instead, what we are hearing is a list of when bills were posted online--a list--which, as I said, bears little reality to what actually happened when ObamaCare was passed.

Now, those are hugely important issues. I am incredibly proud of the job we are doing as Republicans in this body to help save a collapsing healthcare system.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is no higher duty and obligation we have than to ensure that our military is second to none. No matter what kind of a job we do, as important as that is to repeal and replace ObamaCare, if we fail to address this fundamental issue and fail to provide the resources our military needs, nothing else we do in this body matters.

I believe, frankly, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle owe our men and women in uniform, they owe the policymakers at the Pentagon, they owe those people who are serving this Nation the respect of talking about the resources they need to do their job and focusing on the true issue before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

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

We on this side of the aisle are more than happy to talk about health care. We are more than happy to talk about the really crucial work that is underway to rescue our healthcare system from the collapse and the train wreck of ObamaCare, which my colleague's party put into place in the dark of night with no reading of the bill.

We are thrilled actually that our bill is 120 pages and that it is readable and that it is available online right now. So when he leaves the floor, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts can go read the bill.

It is also not surprising that our colleagues do not want to talk about our national defense because the record of the last 8 years, the record of the last President is unparalleled in American history. The mess that we are having to clean up with respect to our healthcare system is matched perhaps only--and maybe even exceeded--by the damage that was done to our military and to our national security under the last administration.

We think, on this side of the aisle, that it is crucially important that we do our job when the time is now to debate, discuss, and vote on this bill and address this topic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Taylor).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. GALLAGHER).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally).

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

H.R. 1301 is the first step we must take in rebuilding our military. It is only a first step. We must also repeal the Budget Control Act and end sequestration if we are going to truly address our shortfalls. We must return to a rational budgeting process at the Pentagon, where spending is based upon defending the defeating threats to this Nation, not arbitrary and devastating across-the-board cuts.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 70 years ago, President Harry Truman addressed this body about the growing Soviet threat to Eastern Europe. He said: ``There are times in world history when it is far wiser to act than to hesitate. There is some risk in action. There always is. But there is far more risk in failure to act.''

President Truman continued: ``We must be prepared to pay the price for peace or, assuredly, we shall pay the price for war.''

Today, Mr. Speaker, I urge that we begin to pay the price for peace. I urge support for the rule and for the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 91, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 44) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior relating to Bureau of Land Management regulations that establish the procedures used to prepare, revise, or amend land use plans pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.J. Res. 44.

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

Mr. Speaker, BLM Planning 2.0 is yet one more example of Obama-era Federal Government overreach. It takes authority away from people in local communities, in my home State of Wyoming, and all across the West. It takes authority away from our elected representatives at a local level, and it puts Washington bureaucrats in charge of decisions that influence and impact our lives.

It significantly dilutes cooperating agency status, and it discounts input from those who are closest to our land and our resources. BLM 2.0 is an example of the midnight rulemaking that we saw that was so rampant in the Obama administration. In fact, it is an abuse of that rulemaking process.

By statute, Mr. Speaker, the BLM is supposed to manage our public lands for multiple use and for sustained yield, but instead we have seen consistently throughout the last 8 years the Obama administration doing everything possible to deny all human use of our public lands.

This rulemaking isn't based on the language of the statute that underlies it. It is based, rather, on policy preferences that have been expressed in memos and in various studies. The rulemaking takes another step in imposing a brand new mitigation formula that essentially is a land grab by a Federal agency that would put even more land under the control of Washington bureaucrats.

Despite the fact that these agencies are required to consider costs as they impose regulations, BLM 2.0 was imposed not only using cost estimates that are clearly wrong, but, in fact, it removed all reference to looking at the devastating impact that this rule has on our local economies across the West.

This rule takes away authority and power from those who know best how to manage our lands and how to manage our resources. In fact, it opens up our planning process to such an extent that we could have foreign, nongovernmental organizations having just as much say in how we manage our land and resources as the very stakeholders--the ranchers, the farmers across Wyoming and the West, and the people that they have elected to speak for them.

In short, Mr. Speaker, this rule takes authority away from those who know best what we need to do to manage and sustain our resources, and it puts it in the hands of the Federal Government and bureaucrats here in Washington, D.C.

Repealing 2.0 using the Congressional Review Act will help to restore the voices and input. It will help to restore democracy and help to restore authority to our local communities.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Virginia may not be completely aware of the implementation and the effect of this rule in Western States like Wyoming where, for example, the process that has been described as an open process is, in fact, one where, in my State, our Department of Environmental Quality on another BLM rule was in a position where they agreed to be a cooperating agency and then did not hear from the BLM for 4 years.

When you are talking about our very livelihood, you are in a situation where we simply can't run that risk. We cannot adopt a rule or let a rule stand that expands that kind of authority in Washington, no matter who is in charge in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), who is the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart).

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

Mr. Speaker, we have nearly 100 State and local groups supporting repeal of BLM 2.0. These are groups like the National Association of Counties, National Association of Conservation Districts, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Public Lands Council, Western Energy Alliance, National Mining Association, Petroleum Association of Wyoming, as well as a number of Governors and local officials, including my home State Governor, Matt Mead.

Mr. Speaker, I include a letter from Governor Mead in support of this joint resolution and a joint letter from numerous other governmental and association groups in support of this joint resolution.

The State of Wyoming,

Office of the Governor,

Wyoming, January 20, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Steve Scalise,

House Majority Whip, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, we know that government that is closest to the people is best. What we have seen over the last 8 years, unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., has been a massive expansion of the authority and the overreach of the Federal Government under the Obama administration. We have seen a number of instances where agencies have acted outside of the law, in some instances outside of the Constitution.

BLM 2.0 is an example of where this agency is acting completely outside of the law. There is absolutely no legal authority, no statutory language on which they can base this rulemaking, on which they can base the fundamental changes that they are making and the fundamental power grab that they are making.

It is hugely important for us, as we go forward here, to make sure that we have done everything we can to roll back regulations that are really killing our jobs, that are preventing people in our local communities from being able to make a living, from being able to consistently graze, for example, on these public lands. It is absolutely outside of the law to have a situation, as 2.0 would create, where people who have never been to these lands, people who, frankly, may not even be in the United States, have just as much a say in how we manage our lands as a rancher who has got to graze on those lands or as the county commissioners who are charged with making decisions about those lands.

A number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have mentioned today the thousands of comments that the BLM sought as they were going through this rulemaking process. The problem is that there is very little evidence that any of those comments were taken into account in the final rulemaking. As I mentioned earlier, the track record with respect to the BLM listening to and being willing to take into account local concerns is a very bad one in which you have got State agencies that are led to believe they will have an impact and then find themselves having radio silence, essentially, from the BLM.

Mr. Speaker, Planning 2.0 is a dangerous and damaging rule. Overturning it today, through the Congressional Review Act, through this joint resolution, will enable us to begin to restore authority where it belongs: with our local communities, with our local elected officials. Those who are closest to the land, those who have to work on the land, those who make a living on the land are the absolute best stewards of our land and of our resources.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this measure to repeal BLM Planning 2.0.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.