Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to gene patenting. The sequencing of the human genome was the most momentous medical achievement in this century, with unparalleled implications for patients and our economy. And we cannot squander that success by patenting genes.

The Human Genome Project has helped our economy to grow by $796 billion. Today, 310,000 American jobs are linked to the sequencing of the Human Genome. Furthermore, personalized medicine has transformed the way doctors care for patients. According to the American Medical Association, more than 1,200 genetic tests can be used today to help diagnose and treat over 1,000 different diseases. Personalized medicine helps to provide safer, more cost-effective medicine.

Yet, to fully realize the potential of personalized medicine, we must ensure that our laws and policies keep pace with our science. Today as we consider the patent bill, I would like to clarify the intersection between genes and patents.

Many of us carry within us genes that predispose us to illnesses or influence the effectiveness of medications. These genes are natural products--not inventions. And as natural products, they should not be patented. It's this simple: just as a kidney cannot be patented, genetic sequences should not be patented.

Unfortunately, 20 percent of our genes have already been claimed as intellectual property. For several decades, the U.S. government issued patents on genes. Thankfully the Department of Justice recognized this clear overreach on the part of the United States Patent and Trademark Office--and moved to correct this mistake.

On October 29, 2010, the United States Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in which they explained: ``the unique chain of chemical base pairs that induces a human cell to express a BRCA protein is not a `human-made invention.' Nor is the fact that particular natural mutations in that unique chain increase a woman's chance of contracting breast or ovarian cancer. Indeed, the relationship between a naturally occurring nucleotide sequence and the molecule it expresses in a human cell--that is, the relationship between genotype and phenotype--is simply a law of nature. The chemical structure of native human genes is a product of nature, and it is no less a product of nature when that structure is `isolated' from its natural environment than are cotton fibers that have been separated from cotton seeds or coal that has been extracted from the earth.''

The United States Department of Justice has come to the inevitable conclusion that genes are natural products, and not fit for patenting. And last year, a federal court in New York came to the same conclusion.

Not only is the issuance of patents on genes wrong, contrary to common sense, and in violation of Congressional intent, but it also damages human health. Gene patents have cut off access to important tests. For example, the company that owns sole rights to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequences--which determines hereditary risk factors around breast and ovarian cancer--charges between $3,000 and $4,000 for a single test. Other laboratories have offered to perform the test for several hundred dollars, but are not able to do so because of the patent on those particular genetic sequences. And the information provided by this test is critical for medical decision-making: Up to 85 percent of those individuals who possess these genetic sequences will be diagnosed with breast cancer at some point in their life. By granting a monopoly, we risk placing these genetic tests out of reach for patients.

Furthermore, gene patents stop innovation in their tracks. They prevent anyone outside of the patent holder from studying the gene sequence under patent. As Dr. Stieglitz of Columbia, a Nobel Prize winning economist, wrote, ``Our genetic makeup is far too complicated for a single entity to hold the keys to any given gene and to be able to choose when, if ever, to share.'' We threaten scientific advancement, if we do not allow scientists to untangle the manifold implications of specific gene sequences. We can not reap the full benefits of personalized medicine if researchers must go to hundreds of different patent holders to analyze one patient's genome.

The battle to keep policy and science marching hand in hand has been a long one, and I worked for dozens of years to ensure that the nation's laws support genetics policy.

In 1995, I introduced legislation, entitled the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), in order to prevent genetic discrimination. For personalized medicine to flourish, patients needed to be able to get genetic tests without the fear that it would endanger their employment or their health insurance. Thirteen years after I first introduced GINA, it was passed into law. GINA is one of the nation's great civil rights laws, which has helped open the door to personalized medicine.

By passing GINA in 2008, the U.S. Congress showed itself to be at the forefront of genetics policy. I expect no less of our government when it comes to gene patenting. Today, the Patent Office has the opportunity to institute evidence-based policy and end the patenting of genes, and it must do so.

I do appreciate my friend from Colorado for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, with this rule today, the Republicans waive their so- called CutGo rule to protect a Republican manager's amendment to the patent reform bill. Nonpartisan experts at the Congressional Budget Office said, ``We estimate that amendment,'' No. 15, Smith, the manager's amendment, ``would significantly increase direct spending, would not affect revenues.''

I think, if I understand correctly, it adds about $140 million in spending.

By reclassifying the fees and spending by the PTO as discretionary, amendment 15 would eliminate $712 million in savings that are scored in the original bill.

Republicans have repeatedly characterized this waiver as ``technical.'' They may think the waiver is technical, but for $712 million to be tossed around does not sound technical to me or to most Americans, I'd wager. We think it's real money.

It was our Speaker, Mr. Boehner, who complained that the previous Democratic majority frequently waived pay-as-you-go to meet its needs. When the Republicans eliminated the PAYGO rule and replaced it with their CutGo rule, Boehner complained that, ``We routinely waive the Budget Act's requirements to serve our purposes.'' Today, it is the internal squabbling of the House Republican Conference whose purposes are being served by a waiver of CutGo.

They go on to say the manager's amendment is important enough to waive CutGo because it preserves congressional oversight of the Patent Office.

This is simply not accurate. The CutGo violation in the manager's amendment--the provision that increases direct spending by $712 million--would simply remove from the bill a provision that was going to ensure the Patent Office was fully funded.

If I didn't already have enough complaints against this manager's amendment, I want to call attention to the House that after 13 years of work we finally got genetic nondiscrimination passed in this Congress so that people could feel free to have genetic tests. This manager's amendment for the first time talks about the patenting of human genes. That must never, ever happen.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, and 459. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 437, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 447, 449, 450, 452, 454, 456, and 458. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote Nos. 438, 444, 445, 446, 448, 451, 453, 455, 457, and 459.

Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, and 436. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote Nos. 420, 422, 426, and 428. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote Nos. 421, 423, 424, 425, 427, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, and 436. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following this vote.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on official business and missed rollcall vote Nos. 417, 418 and 419. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 417, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 418 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 419.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on official business and missed rollcall vote Nos. 413, 414, 415 and 416. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 413, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 414, ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 415 and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 416. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following this vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of The MARCH for Military Women Act (Military Access to Reproductive Care and Health), legislation that will help our servicewomen to gain access to reproductive health services. As our servicewomen risk their lives defending our country, it is deeply unfair that they are denied the rights of the Constitution that they defend.

Currently, the health coverage provided to servicewomen fails to cover abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. Moreover, our servicewomen cannot pay for abortions with their own money on overseas military bases, even when local services are unsafe.

The epidemic of sexual assault in the military highlights the unfairness of these prohibitions. Department of Defense statistics show that 3,158 sexual assaults were reported in the military in fiscal year 2010. While shocking, that statistic only reflects a fraction of the sexual assaults, due to under-reporting in the military. Indeed, the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services report estimated that as many as 90 percent of sexual assaults go unreported. After a woman is assaulted, she should not have to fight to receive medical services such as an abortion.

Access barriers facing rape victims in the military are just one example of the indignities suffered by servicewomen who need to terminate their pregnancies.

Currently, servicewomen are not allowed to purchase abortion services with their own funds on overseas military bases. They were afforded this right until 1988, when the Department of Defense rescinded it. Preventing servicewomen from accessing abortions on military bases means that they may be forced to rely on unsafe local facilities. Failing that, a servicewoman would need to request permission from her supervisor to leave her combat mission and return to the United States.

The current prohibitions in the military are unfair, unjust, and potentially dangerous.

A recent article in Religion Dispatches tells the story of a young Marine, who after being raped, attempted to self-abort. Her only tools were an herbal abortifacient, a rifle cleaning rod, and a laundry pin. Despite dangerous hemorrhaging, she kept working for five weeks until she realized that she needed to return to the United States for medical treatment.

Our servicewomen deserve the right to determine their own destiny, without risking their health unnecessarily. That is why I have introduced legislation that will:

Lift the statutory ban that denies U.S. servicewomen coverage for abortion care in cases of rape or incest;

Lift the statutory ban that prevents women in the military from using private funds to access abortion services at U.S. military facilities.

Our servicewomen deserve better. I urge you to help servicewomen access their constitutionally-protected rights.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on official business and missed rollcall vote Nos. 386, 387 and 388. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``no'' on rollcall vote Nos. 386, 387, 388.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill, Amendment Roll No. Vote ------------------------------------------------------------------------ H.R. 2017, Royce Amendment......................... 386 No H.R. 2017, Poe (TX) Amendment...................... 387 No H.R. 2017, Cuellar Amendment....................... 388 No ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chair, I rise to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan, which would strike language from this legislation that would restrict Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) funding to only 10 urban areas across the country.

Last year, as a result of Republican-led cuts, the number of urban areas eligible to receive funding in UASI to assist local law enforcement deal with the threat of terrorist attacks was dropped from 64 to 31. Last week those cuts hit home, when two cities in my district were unjustly removed from the list of areas that received federal funding as part of this grant program. While we in Western New York appreciate the many national security needs across the country, it made me question our security priorities when two cities in an international border were denied funding only to have funding allocated to smaller cities in our nation's interior. I think that if you ask law enforcement officials in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Albany, they'll tell you that denying this small amount of funding to Upstate does not mean we are less at risk. Rather we've shifted the financial burden of security on them. In turn we may all be less safe.

Should this amendment fail to pass, it will effectively prevent cities like Rochester and Buffalo from competing for UASI grants in the future thanks to the plans of the majority to reduce funding even more in future years. At a time when the threat of terrorist attacks is high, we cannot lay the entire financial burden of securing our cities on local authorities, first responders, law enforcement and agencies and expect to adequately protect our citizens and make our cities safe.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce a resolution recognizing and thanking Gander International Airport, the citizens of Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador and the people and Government of Canada for the immeasurable assistance they provided to the United States on September 11, 2001.

Following the terrorist attacks and the closure of U.S. airspace, flights en route to the United States were rerouted to airports across Canada. The Canadian government instituted Operation Yellow Ribbon, closing their own airspace along with the U.S. for the first time in the history of both countries and safely landing 239 aircraft destined for the U.S. and Canada at 17 airports across Canada.

Gander International Airport, located in Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, was one such airport to welcome flights bound for the U.S. The small community of Gander has a population of less than 10,000, and Gander International Airport was only scheduled to receive a total of eight flights that day. Yet it received the second most number of flights, 38, and the second most number of passengers, 6,600, out of all the Canadian airports during Operation Yellow Ribbon. What transpired over the course of the next three days in that small community will forever stand as an inspirational story of kindness and generosity during a time of enormous adversity.

As stranded passengers waited for the U.S. to reopen its airspace, the people of Gander responded by donating food, clothing, shelter and medicine. Citizens of Gander welcomed stranded passengers into their homes, held sightseeing and whale watching trips, and organized impromptu concerts to strengthen morale and provide emotional support. No request was too large and no call for help went unanswered.

The outpouring of kindness and support from the people of Gander was so remarkable and memorable for everyone involved that the stranded passengers have since sponsored scholarships for Newfoundlanders, donated computer equipment to area communities, financed a new conference room for the Gander area community of Lewisporte and held annual reunions to show their appreciation for the goodwill of the citizens of Gander.

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States are well documented. However we must also officially recognize and acknowledge the tremendous assistance we received that day from the citizens of Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, Gander International Airport and the entire nation of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing and thanking the citizens of Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador for their kindness and generosity during the most devastating terrorist attack in American history. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the people of Gander as well as the entire nation of Canada.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to read a sentence from a report that was recently released. It is something for us to think about: ``We are in uncharted territory here,'' says the Army Vice Chief of Staff. ``We have never fought for this long. In the history of the Republic, we have never fought for this long with an all-volunteer force that is only 1 percent of the population.''

Mr. Chairman, we see what is the result of this war. Tens of thousands of our young soldiers are maimed with life-altering conditions, complete loss of limbs, devastating head wounds which will change their lives forever, many younger than 20 years old.

Osama bin Laden has been captured and dealt with. That was the reason for us going in the first place. Only Congress, only Congress can stop this. We are so open ended. We have talked here today about how we can't leave until the Afghans say we are ready. That may be 50 years from now, Mr. Chairman, and it is time that we really got serious about what we are doing here, not only to the young men and women who go but for the $10 billion per month it adds to our deficit.

I see them at the airport every week. I see them, some of them on their fourth deployment, and they beg me, they beg me to come down here and try to get this to stop. They have literally said to me that they will send me back until I am dead, and I come home in a box. How dare we do this? It is time; it is time for us to face up to the fact that what we could do there has been done and that we need a definite timetable as quickly as possible to stop this war in Afghanistan.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Reciprocal Market Access Act. In the wake of the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, our country faces a difficult road towards recovery. As part of this effort, it is critical that we ensure that our trade policy is working as it should: to generate new opportunities for our businesses, strengthen American manufacturing capabilities, and reduce the unemployment rate that has risen to the highest level in decades.

American manufacturers of products ranging from optical fiber to autos and agriculture face continual problems with access to overseas markets. Our own trade negotiators do little to prevent this from happening, as it is often standard for trade agreements to open our

markets fully to foreign competitors, yet we gain little market access in return. The pending free trade agreement with South Korea is another example of a free trade agreement that opens our markets to foreign competition while failing to address serious market access concerns in Korea.

We must provide our negotiators with unequivocal guidelines so that they do not relinquish our domestic trade protections without gaining meaningful market access for American manufacturers in exchange. Unless other governments play by the rules and remove barriers to our exports, the U.S. should not acquiesce to their demands by further opening our market--which is already the most open market in the global economy. Unilateral disarmament in the face of foreign protectionist practices is unacceptable, and we must ensure that our trade negotiators do not undermine our industries and our workers.

The Reciprocal Market Access Act would instruct our trade negotiators to eliminate foreign market barriers before reducing U.S. tariffs. This bill would also provide enforcement authority to reinstate the tariff if the foreign government does not honor its commitment to remove its barriers.

This legislation also addresses a serious problem in the current trade negotiating process. Tariff and non-tariff sectoral barriers are compartmentalized, meaning that a tariff item can be reduced or eliminated by our negotiators without securing elimination of the non- tariff barriers that deny U.S. industry access to a foreign market. This legislation would give our government the right to revoke concessions to cut tariffs if our trading partners fail to implement negotiated commitments to eliminate barriers that had initially been identified by U.S. domestic producers for our negotiators.

The principle of reciprocity--the principle on which this legislation is built--is not new. In fact it is a principle that should be essential to any effective trade relationship. Cordell Hull, Democrat from Tennessee and Roosevelt's Secretary of State in 1933, was responsible for bringing this concept into the U.S. and global trade systems with the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934. It was this act which formed the basis for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Mr. Hull developed the Act to move away from the negative consequences of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised U.S. tariffs on thousands of imports to record levels. Smoot-Hawley established the United States as protectionist, and provoked a rash of retaliatory measures from our trading partners.

It is no longer the United States that is shutting its markets to foreign competitors. We have the most open market in the world, and continue to find ways to lower tariffs and eliminate market barriers. Yet this policy is often not reciprocated, as American manufacturers find significant barriers to foreign markets while they watch their own domestic market share dwindle. The result is quality American companies are forced to downsize or close their doors for good, and American workers are left jobless.

That is not free trade. Free trade involves a system where American companies are able to compete in markets uninhibited by barriers. It involves a level playing field for American companies and our trading partners. And I have no doubt that if given a level playing field, American companies and American workers can compete in any market.

The Reciprocal Market Access Act will mandate that at the very least any trade agreement does not put American companies and workers at a competitive disadvantage. It establishes what should be the standard for all trade agreements: a mutually beneficial trade relationship in which goods can be freely exchanged and that promotes economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Force Protection and Readiness Act of 2011.

This legislation will provide greater protections for our service women and men stationed in the U.S. and abroad. Sexual assault is a pervasive and serious problem throughout all branches of the military.

Over 65,000 servicemen and women have experienced some form of sexual assault or rape since 2002. In the Department of Defense (DoD) Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, there was a total of 3,230 reports of sexual assault involving military service members as either victims or subjects. This represents an 11 percent increase over FY 2008.

In 2008, in nearly half of all sexual assault cases the commander took no action, and only 13 percent of reported cases were prosecuted and referred to courts martial. These figures are far below civilian prosecution rates, where 40 percent of those arrested for rape are prosecuted. We must ensure that there is zero tolerance for sexual assault in the military services.

The Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services report released in December 2009 estimates that as many as 90 percent of sexual assaults go unreported. We hear too often that the reporting process may be as traumatic for the victim as the attack itself. In order to fully support and protect our troops, we must ensure the rights of sexual assault victims are upheld every step of the way.

If a victim cannot access essential care for fear of stigma, public embarrassment, threats to her career, or because they just do not know what resources are available, the military will continue to lose valuable female and male soldiers. These service members put themselves in harm's way to protect us and our Nation from threats at home and abroad. This bill ensures they are protected when dealing with the horrible tragedy of sexual assault.

The Force Protection and Readiness Act will expand the rights and protections of victims. First, it will create confidentiality protocols to protect victim rights and raise the propensity for a soldier to report their case by ensuring they receive adequate legal assistance and appropriate privileged communications with victim advocates. Second, it will ensure ease of base or organization transfer for victims or the offender, thereby decreasing fear of retaliation and bolstering victim reports. Third, it

will require that each service branch employ highly qualified experts to train and advise JAGs to handle and try sexual assault cases effectively. Fourth, it will ensure more complete sexual assault data reporting to better track DoD-wide reports and case disposition. Fifth, it will establish in statute a universal hotline to facilitate victim reporting and provide victims an immediate connection with sexual assault response coordinators.

We must put an end to what our former colleague and previous Army Secretary Pete Geren called ``fratricide.'' We must keep the pressure on DoD to eliminate sexual assault in the ranks.

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

We have had many misnamed bills, euphemistically called almost anything to try to make some kind of point, but this one does not have a thing in the world to do with restricting Federal money used in abortions. That has not been done for 30 years. This bill actually says let's try to make sure that no insurance companies in the country will ever cover them again no matter what the circumstances.

With no other medical procedure would we be even standing here talking about what's best for American citizens. In all my years in Congress, I have never had to debate a bill about how and when a patient can receive an appendectomy nor a bill about how or when a patient can receive corrective surgery nor is it legal to have a vasectomy.

Yet here we are today debating a bill that will reach far beyond the status quo and place restrictions on the constitutionally protected right to access reproductive health care. In the case of abortion, it has been decided with this bill that they can dictate how and when a woman is allowed to receive reproductive health care.

In part because women are instinctual nurturers, the decision about whether or not to have an abortion is one of the most personal and important decisions that they will ever make. In making this decision, a woman should be free to consult with whomever she pleases, whether it be her doctor, her spouse, her family, a parent, confidant, or religious adviser.

But a woman should never, never be forced to adhere to extreme restrictions placed upon her by Members of Congress. I've served in three legislatures, and in every one of them were always men in blue suits who knew very little about the life-altering experience of pregnancy and birth who demanded this kind of action.

I have often spoken in support of a woman's right to access an abortion and have many people, including some of my own constituents, who disagree with me, and that's fine. They have never, however, tried by law to enforce upon me what they themselves believe.

Once I was at a meeting in my district and I was asked by a man who was strongly opposed to a woman's right to choose, What should be done about that? And my response to him was simple and personal and still applies today.

I asked him that if, God forbid, he ever finds himself in a difficult position of having to decide whether or not his wife needed to have an abortion, either because of the health of the fetus or the mother was in danger or because of another personal or private matter, is he willing to say to people gathered in the hospital and during the discussion, No decision can be made until Louise Slaughter gets here because Congress will make that decision for him?

The right to an abortion is already a procedure that is carefully regulated by the decision of Roe v. Wade. Today's legislation would go far beyond this status quo and further restrict access in an attempt to make it practically impossible to receive an abortion under these laws.

Today's bill changes the tax system--this is an important point and I want you to understand this--for private health care plans that offer abortion coverage to small businesses and individuals, as most of them do. If passed into law, this bill would pressure private health insurance plans to stop offering that coverage altogether. And that, Madam Speaker, is the purpose of this bill.

In addition, and most egregiously, today's legislation opens the door to the IRS audits of rape and incest survivors, to prove that they followed the law when paying for an abortion. Do we do this with anything else--I'm absolutely astonished--to place this kind of burden on a medical procedure? It's been designed specifically to chip away at the rights of women.

Most egregiously, this bill has put a dangerous provision into the committee report that accompanies this bill. Please listen up. You need to know what this says in this report language, which is as important as the bill itself. That report language states that the legislation is intended to prohibit the use of Federal money to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the rape of a child too young to give consent.

Now, think about that for a moment. This bill forbids any money being used to help that child. It's not bad enough that they have been raped or that they are victims of incest. Now we're telling them that they have to keep records so that they can prove to the IRS that they followed the law? That is what I thought about when I made the statement earlier this spring ``show me your papers.'' And that is precisely what this bill is asking to do.

If this bill becomes law, think about the statutory rape. Think about your children. Think about other people's children. If it becomes law, the committee report will become one of the

documents relied upon by the courts when deciding the cases about abortion. With the committee report in hand, a future justice would have the document they need to further restrict access to abortion for victims of rape and incest. If this sounds extreme, believe me, it is.

We, like our Nation's Founders, know that each individual is entitled to his or her beliefs. But no matter how strongly we believe them, we should not be allowed to force them upon others as we wish. Yet placing an ideology upon others and restricting their choices when it comes to reproductive health is the spirit behind today's legislation and one of the many reasons why it should be stopped.

As we all know, at the time of our Nation's founding, the ideal of equal rights and freedoms was far from realized. In fact, it was not even of much concern. African Americans were property; women could not vote or own anything; and indeed, a pregnant woman who was widowed could find that her child had been willed away from her by her husband, who had all the rights. Native Americans were pushed off their land and out of our society.

With great struggle and over time--and certainly, I know of the struggle for women's rights because of what happened in my own district, which is where that struggle began--we have righted many of these wrongs, and as a Nation, we have come to believe that men and women of every color and creed are created equal, that we are all entitled to the rights and individual freedoms at the core of our Nation's ideals.

Today's proposed legislation up-ends the principle of equal rights and freedoms by placing severe restrictions on the constitutionally protected right to an abortion. Instead of crafting legislation to restrict a woman's right to safe, secure reproductive health, this Congress should respect the rights of women and uphold their constitutionally protected rights.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and on the underlying bill, which may be the most egregious that comes to the floor this year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

I yield myself 30 seconds just to speak to something that is very important.

H.R. 3 is actually dangerous for women's health. By refusing to provide any exceptions to women who are facing serious health conditions--cancer, heart or whatever that may be--you are forcing women to choose to risk their health or to risk bankruptcy, and I think that is morally unacceptable.

Under H.R. 3, a woman facing cancer who needs to terminate a pregnancy in order to live might have to go into debt over the $10,000 that the legal and necessary procedure could cost. Despite having both health insurance and tax-preferred savings accounts, this bill would prevent her from having that.

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a nurse, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to put in the real Guttmacher statement, what they have said. ``The claim that restoration of Federal Medicaid coverage would result in a significant increase in the incidence of abortion nationwide is not supported by research, and extrapolating from Guttmacher's Medicaid

findings to assert that coverage in the private insurance market is strongly linked to abortion incidence is entirely illegitimate.''

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the

gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I first want to remind people what we've said about statutory rape. When this bill was first introduced, it modified the long-standing rape exception to the Hyde amendment by adding the term ``forcible'' before the word ``rape.'' In other words, the victim of rape had to show wounds and other matters that she really was forcibly raped before she could be covered, but they changed that because there was such an outcry. But they have found another way to get to exclude other victims of rape. Just saying those words scandalizes me.

The House Judiciary Committee report, which will be used by the courts to interpret the intent of this bill, says the bill will not allow the Federal Government to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape, claiming that this reflects existing law, and of course it does not. Statutory rape is one of the most serious of crimes because the young woman involved has not given consent and, indeed, is not allowed to because of her age. How dare we do that? Have they not suffered enough?

The Hyde amendment does not distinguish between statutory rape or any other kind of rape. In fact, a 1978 regulation implementing the Hyde amendment makes clear that it includes victims of statutory rape in the funding exemption.

Now, if most people in the United States don't want their tax money used for abortions, they can relax. We've not been using tax money for 38 years. We're not going to change that with this bill. That's not the intent of this bill at all. It's simply the title, which is meaningless.

What it does do is it increases taxes on middle class and lower- income women and their families, but it singles out small business employers and penalizes them if they provide comprehensive insurance coverage that includes abortion. Nearly two-thirds of all voters polled--this is two-thirds--oppose this draconian change in the tax system for small business and individuals with plans that cover abortion. In fact, even most Republicans, tea party supporters, anti- abortion workers, and evangelical Christians oppose the tax increase.

As the head of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce wrote in a Hill column Monday: ``H.R. 3 is simply a slap in the face to the millions of small businesses now offering health insurance to employees and eligible for the new tax credits'' that come from the new health care bill.

[From The Hill's Congress Blog, May 2, 2011]

H.R. 3 A Deliberate Attack on Small Business

(By Frank Knapp, Jr.)

After decades of escalading group health insurance premiums

and demands for Congressional action for relief, a little

over one year ago many of our small businesses finally were

given the opportunity for federal health insurance tax

credits.

Now H.R. 3, up for a vote this week, threatens to erase

this benefit for small businesses because it would eliminate

the health insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care

Act for any existing or new plans that provide coverage for

abortion.

The problems H.R. 3 would cause for small businesses that

are trying to do the right thing and offer health insurance

have nothing to do with the ideological intent of this bill.

Even if a small business owner agrees with the intent, the

cost of passage of H.R. 3 in terms of time, money and

continuity of policy is very significant.

Small business owners do not have the expertise to closely

examine healthcare plans to determine if abortion coverage is

included. Such services are not labeled ``abortion'' but

rather fall into numerous clauses in a health care policy

from prescription drugs to outpatient surgery to maternity

care that includes unforeseen complications. Small business

owners are no more prepared to completely understand the fine

print of their health insurance policies than members of

Congress.

Requiring a small business owner to try to understand the

intricacies of their health insurance policies would require

considerable time on their own or with an insurance agent

(who also probably has no idea how to interpret the verbiage

in the policy as it relates to abortion). Essentially H.R. 3

will cause a small employer to divert time from running the

business. And if time is money, as we are all told, then H.R.

3 will be an increase in cost for small businesses offering

health insurance.

Small businesses that finally determine that their health

insurance policy does in fact cover even one abortion service

will be financially punished in one of two ways. Either they

can keep their present policy and lose thousands of dollars

in hard won tax credits or they will give up their current

health plan and most likely have to pay higher premiums for a

new plan. The latter will result from both re-underwriting by

a new carrier and adding provisions now required in any new

policy. This is especially true since the health insurance

exchanges will not be in place until 2014 to increase

competition for this business.

H.R. 3 is simply a slap in the face to the millions of

small businesses now offering health insurance to employees

and eligible for the new tax credits. Targeting small

businesses for such punitive action, while ignoring big

businesses that also receive tax benefits when offering

health insurance, demonstrates a callous disregard for the

``backbone of our economy'', as members of Congress love to

proclaim.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of The Violence Against Women Health Initiative Act, legislation that will bring the resources and expertise of the health sector to bear on the persistent problem of domestic and sexual violence.

I invite you to join me today in the fight to preserve the fundamental dignity and safety of women across this great nation--a right to safety and security that should never be abrogated, and yet is under threat every day.

Every nine seconds, a woman is abused in the United States. And every year, women are subjected to 4.8 million assaults and rapes by their intimate partners. According to 2009 statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, of the 1,928 women murdered, 609 were wives murdered by their husbands; and 472 were girlfriends murdered by their significant other.

While no sector of society is left untouched by violence against women, the health care system is particularly impacted by violence and abuse.

Recent studies show that abuse victims use health care services between 2 and 2.5 times that of those who are not victims of abuse. More than 20 years of research connects child and adult exposure to domestic and sexual violence to asthma, stroke, heart disease, cancer, and depression. Intimate partner rape, physical assault, and stalking costs the health care system over $8.3 billion annually.

In this period of elevated unemployment rates, there is particular cause for concern. The rate of violence in a relationship nearly doubles when a man is unemployed at least once. The rate of violence almost triples when a man experiences multiple periods of unemployment. In this economic recession, we have to be even more vigilant to prevent violence against women.

The health care system is uniquely positioned to take a leading role in fighting and responding to the prevalence of violence.

Victims know and trust their health care providers. Almost three- quarters of survivors say that they would like their health care providers to ask them about violence and abuse.

Multiple clinical studies have shown that short interventions in the medical environment protect the health and safety of women. These interventions are short--between two and ten minutes--and effective. In repeated clinical trials, violence decreased and health status improved following simple assessment and referral protocols. Integrating these effective protocols into our health care system will save lives.

Indeed, routine assessment for intimate partner violence has been recommended for health care settings by the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Nurses Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations.

Efforts by the health care system to prevent and respond to violence and abuse against women are built upon the success of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), first passed in 1994.

Since its passage, the Violence Against Women Act has transformed our criminal justice and social service system. Between 1993 and 2008, the rate of intimate partner violence dropped 53%. Clearly, we are on the right track.

Yet we need to do more.

Despite the commitment of the health field to help victims of violence and abuse, a critical gap remains in the delivery of health care to victims. Health care providers often only address current injuries, without tackling the underlying cause of those injuries. This highlights the need to ensure that health care providers have the necessary training and support in order to assess, refer, and support victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

Today, I introduced the ``Violence Against Women Health Initiative Act'' as the first step in reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, helping the health care system to become a major player in the fight against violence against women. This bill would reauthorize three health programs; changes in the legislation will prioritize evaluation and accountability, as well as to expand the types of medical stakeholders engaged in this important effort.

There should be no safe harbor for those who perpetrate domestic violence and sexual assault in the twenty-first century.