All articles in House section

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 358, PROTECT LIFE ACT
(House of Representatives - October 13, 2011)

Text of this article available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

        


[Pages H6869-H6881]
       PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 358, PROTECT LIFE ACT

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 430 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 430

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     358) to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
     to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion 
     services under such Act. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
     adopted and that the bill, as amended, shall be considered as 
     read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.


                             Point of Order

  Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order that the rule, H. 
Res. 430, violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The 
resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against 
consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of 
the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 
426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin makes a point 
of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentlewoman has met the threshold under the rule, and the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means 
of disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  I raise this point of order that H.R. 358 contains several potential 
unfunded mandates that would burden the States, burden private 
insurance companies, and burden women. I am also raising this point of 
order because it is a powerful vehicle to register my concern that this 
bill is a misguided ideological distraction from what should be our top 
priority--getting people back to work and protecting working families 
who have been hit hard by economic circumstances.
  It is so clear to me that in spite of what our colleagues may say 
across the aisle, this bill is not about public funding for abortion. 
It's really crystal clear, Madam Speaker, that the Affordable Care Act 
already explicitly prohibits Federal funding for abortion. It reaffirms 
the Hyde amendment. It even includes the Nelson amendment to ensure 
that there's no commingling of funds. H.R. 358 would bring back the 
infamous world of Stupak-Pitts. But this time it adds even more 
restrictive language to the proposal.
  This bill would essentially ban insurance coverage of abortion in 
health care exchanges, not just for women who are being publicly funded 
or subsidized in the exchanges, but even for women paying with their 
own private dollars, Madam Speaker. In addition, H.R. 358 would create 
a system that plays Russian roulette with pregnant women's lives when 
they enter a hospital. This would mean that any hospital could refuse 
to perform an emergency abortion--even if a woman would die without 
it--without violating the Federal law designed to prevent people from 
being denied emergency medical care.
  It goes even further by paving the way to allow State refusal laws 
that are not limited to the provision of abortion services, but to 
anything that would be considered controversial--treatment for STIs, 
birth control services, screening services, and counseling.
  With that, I would yield time to my good colleague from California, 
Representative Speier.
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentlelady from Wisconsin.
  Madam Speaker, I think this bill goes to the farthest extreme in 
trying to take women down not just a peg but take them in shackles to 
some cave somewhere. Twenty-five years ago, this body passed EMTALA, a 
bill that basically said anyone that shows up at an emergency room 
would access health care, no questions asked. Now, my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle want to amend that law and basically say, Oh, 
except for a woman who is in need of an abortion, or except for a woman 
who's bleeding to death who happens to be pregnant, or except for a 
woman who is miscarrying.
  Basically, what this bill would do is say that any hospital could 
decline to provide services to one class of people in this country. And 
that one class of people is pregnant women.
  Let me tell you something. My story is pretty well known now. I was 
pregnant. I was miscarrying. I was bleeding. If I had to go from one 
hospital to the next trying to find one emergency room that would take 
me in, who knows if I would even be here today.
  What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attempting to 
do is misogynist. It is absolutely misogynist.
  The time has come for us to stop taking up this issue over and over 
again this year and do something that the American people really care 
about. They want jobs. They want to be able to hold on to their homes. 
They want some mortgage relief. And what do we do? We stand here on the 
floor and create yet another opportunity for women to be cast in 
shackles.
  Ms. MOORE. Thank you for that compelling story.
  How much time do I have, Madam Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. MOORE. I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from 
Illinois, Representative Jan Schakowsky.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank my friend, the gentlewoman, for yielding to 
me. I rise in support of her point of order.
  The American people are begging us to work together to create jobs to 
bolster the economy. Instead, we're here once again to consider 
legislation that endangers and attacks the right of women and is far 
out of the mainstream of American priorities.
  H.R. 358 is extreme legislation. It is another attempt to unravel the 
health care law while at the same time expanding anti-choice laws that 
will harm women's health. It would take away a woman's right to make 
her own decisions about her reproductive health--even with her own 
money. It would allow public hospitals, as you heard, to deny emergency 
abortion care to women in life-threatening situations. It would expand 
the existing conscience objection to allow providers to avoid providing 
contraception. We're talking now about birth control.
  This legislation revives a debate that has already been settled. 
There is no Federal funding for an abortion in the health care reform 
law. Legal experts have said it, independent fact-check organizations 
have said it. Yet Republicans continue to insist that the possibility 
of funding remains.

[[Page H6870]]

                              {time}  1210

  Federal funds are already prohibited from being used for abortions 
under the Hyde amendment--at the expense, I should add, of poor women, 
Federal employees, women of the District of Columbia, and women in the 
military. But this bill goes way beyond that law. The attention 
Republicans are focusing on the private lives of women--what American 
families do with their own money--makes it clear that their real goal 
is to ban all abortions and end access to birth control and 
contraceptives.
  Republicans don't want government to protect the water we drink--oh, 
no--or the air we breathe or the food we eat, but they do want to 
intrude in a woman's right to choose.
  We are now at 280 days into this Congress without passing a jobs 
plan, yet the Republican majority has consistently managed to pass 
extreme and divisive legislation targeted at women's health. The 
administration strongly opposes H.R. 358, and this bill has no chance 
of becoming law. Now is the time to work on the issues that are most 
important to Americans--creating jobs and improving the economy--rather 
than restricting reproductive choice and access to family planning.
  American women will suffer if this bill becomes law, but we're just 
wasting time here because it will not. And it just shows how mean 
spirited and extreme this legislation is. It's a way to roll back 
women's health and rights. It's too extreme for women, too extreme for 
America, and we should reject it right now.
  Ms. MOORE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the point of 
order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. The question before the House is: Should the House now 
consider H. Res. 430? While the resolution waives all points of order 
against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any 
points of order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature.
  The Congressional Budget Office has stated that H.R. 358 contains no 
intergovernmental or private sector mandates, as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and would impose no cost on State, local, 
or tribal governments. Again, Madam Speaker, this waiver is 
prophylactic, and the motion of the gentlewoman is dilatory.
  I would like to now yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina for yielding me this time.
  I have listened very carefully to the arguments that have been 
advanced by the speakers on the other side--my friend and neighbor, the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Speier), and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). None 
of them address the question before the House. The question before the 
House is whether or not to consider this bill. It's not about jobs--
although they're important. It's not about the merits of the bill--
which we will debate later should the House vote to consider this bill. 
It's about whether there are unfunded mandates in the bill.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) read the CBO statement 
of February 28, 2011: ``H.R. 358 contains no intergovernmental or 
private sector mandates, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments.'' 
That's what the CBO said, and that has not been rebutted either by the 
proposer of the point of order, my colleague from Wisconsin (Ms. 
Moore), or those who have spoken on behalf of this.
  Now, if we're to follow the rules and say, okay, if there's an 
unfunded mandate, we ought to waive it--which the resolution does--then 
we've all got to vote ``yes'' on consideration, because there are no 
unfunded mandates and nobody has claimed that there are any unfunded 
mandates. That's why the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is 
correct in saying that the point of order is dilatory.
  If you want to debate the bill, let's debate the bill. If you want to 
object to consideration of the bill, then all you want to do, those who 
decide to vote ``no'' on this motion to consider ought to have a debate 
on whether there should be public funding of abortion.
  Now, when the taxpayers are asked to fund abortions, that's a whole 
different issue than whether there should be a right to abortion. This 
question is whether there should be taxpayer funding of abortion. There 
are no unfunded mandates. And the honest vote is ``yes'' on the motion 
to consider.
  Ms. MOORE. I would reserve my right to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina would 
have the right to close.
  Ms. MOORE. Does the gentlewoman have more speakers?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
have other speakers?
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I believe that we 
have the right to close; is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct. The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina has the right to close.
  Ms. FOXX. Then I will reserve my time.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, can you tell me how much time I have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  I would yield 1 minute to my colleague from California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I find it actually somewhat humorous to think that the argument on 
the other side of the aisle is that this is dilatory when, in fact, the 
entire bill is dilatory when you look at what is really facing this 
country right now.
  This bill makes it very clear that any hospital that does not want to 
provide emergency room services to a woman who is miscarrying and needs 
an abortion would no longer have to do it. Let's make that very clear.
  Let me read one little example from the American Journal of Public 
Health:
  A woman with a condition that prevented her blood from clotting was 
in the process of miscarrying at a Catholic-owned hospital. According 
to her doctor, she was dying before his eyes. In fact, her eyes were 
filling with blood. But even though her life was in danger and the 
fetus had no chance of survival, the hospital wouldn't let the doctor 
treat her by terminating the pregnancy until the fetal heartbeat 
ceased.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I can tell you this bill does waive the 
health and lives of women if the point of order is not found to be in 
order.
  To sum it up, H.R. 358 is incredibly divisive. It takes away 
comprehensive health coverage from women in not only eliminating the 
protections they currently have right now, but going even further than 
current law and completely undermining women's health.
  At a time when the majority should be using its tremendous power to 
create jobs and turn the economy around, the majority is using its 
power to turn on women.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I find it unbelievable that our colleagues across the 
aisle could make the comments that they are making today. H.R. 358 
takes away no protections from women in this country. It takes away no 
rights of women. It is not extreme.
  Seventy-seven percent of the people in this country are opposed to 
taxpayer funding for abortions. What H.R. 358 does is to say we are 
going to make it absolutely certain that we are not going to use 
taxpayer funding to pay for abortions, even under what has become known 
as ObamaCare. This bill does not go beyond the pale, as our colleagues 
have said. It is not outside the mainstream. It is our colleagues 
across the aisle who are outside the mainstream. They represent 23 
percent of the people in this country who do want to see taxpayer 
funding for abortions. They are outside the mainstream.
  And talk about dilatory, this whole point of order is dilatory. It is 
an effort on their part to simply bring up issues that are irrelevant. 
And in many cases, the points made are not true. They are

[[Page H6871]]

the ones who are wasting time. They say we should be dealing with the 
jobs bill.
  Well, Madam Speaker, let me point out to our colleagues across the 
aisle that not one of them who spoke today, not one of them who gave 1-
minutes on the jobs bill have cared to be cosponsors of the jobs bill. 
The jobs bill, which President Obama has been asking the Congress to 
pass, was defeated in the Senate.

                              {time}  1220

  It was introduced in the House by one Member, and he put on the bill, 
``by request.'' That means it was a courtesy to the President. No other 
Member across the aisle has chosen to cosponsor that bill. If they are 
so eager to get that bill passed, you would think that they would 
become cosponsors of the bill.
  We are doing a lot on our side of the aisle to create jobs. We are 
doing our best to reduce spending and to reduce rules and regulations, 
and that will create jobs in this country.
  Additional spending by the Federal Government doesn't create jobs. We 
know that from the stimulus bill that was passed in 2009.
  And for my colleagues across the aisle who say that this is a 
misogynist bill, nobody has ever fought more for the rights of women 
than I have. But 50 percent of the unborn babies that are being aborted 
are females. So the misogyny comes from those who promote the killing 
of unborn babies. That's where the misogyny comes in, Madam Speaker. It 
doesn't come in from our trying to protect taxpayers' money from being 
spent on killing unborn children.
  Madam Speaker, in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled 
business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of 
consideration of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
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

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 430 provides for a closed 
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act.
  I would now like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey 
(Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, the Protect Life Act offered by Chairman Joe Pitts and 
Dan Lipinski ensures that all the elements of the Hyde amendment apply 
to all the programs that are authorized and appropriated in ObamaCare.
  By now I trust that all Members fully understand that because 
programs in ObamaCare are both authorized and appropriated in the law 
on a parallel track but not subject to appropriations under HHS, the 
actual Hyde amendment therefore has no legal effect whatsoever. Hyde 
only affects Labor-HHS programs including Medicaid, not the massive 
expansion of government-funded health care. Thus, ObamaCare, when 
phased in fully in 2014, will open up the floodgates of public funding 
for abortion in a myriad of programs, including and especially in the 
``exchanges'', resulting in more dead babies and wounded mothers than 
would otherwise have been the case.
  Because abortion methods dismember, decapitate, crush, poison, or 
starve to death or induce premature labor, pro-life Members of Congress 
and, according to every reputable poll, majorities of Americans want no 
complicity whatsoever in the destruction of human life. ObamaCare 
forces us to be complicit.
  Despite breathtaking advances in recent years, and respecting and 
treating unborn children as patients in need of diagnosis and care and 
treatment for any number of diseases just like any other patient, far 
too many people dismiss the baby in the womb as persona non grata.
  I respectfully submit: How can violence against children by abortion 
be construed as benign or compassionate or caring?
  The dangerous myth of ``safe abortion'' must be exposed--and 
absolutely not subsidized by taxpayers. So-called safe abortion is the 
ultimate oxymoron, an Orwellian manipulation of language designed to 
convey bogus respectability to a lethal act. Abortion is, by any 
reasonable definition, child mortality. Its sole purpose is to kill a 
baby.
  I would also suggest that presumptuous talk that brands any child as 
``unwanted'' or an ``unwanted child'' reduces that child to a mere 
object bereft of inherent dignity or value.
  We should not be paying for abortion. I support the Protect Life Act.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the Protect Life Act amends the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act to prohibit Federal funds from being used to pay 
for abortion services or any health plan that includes such service. It 
also imposes new restrictions on health insurance coverage for 
termination care and expands conscience protection laws, while limiting 
access to reproductive health services.
  At a time when our Nation is facing great economic uncertainty and 
millions of Americans are in need of jobs, please, somebody tell me why 
we are here considering a bill that is a direct attack on a woman's 
constitutionally protected right to choose and that does not create one 
single job.
  Let's be serious here. Republicans have yet to pass a jobs bill. 
Instead of getting down to the business of creating jobs, they're 
bringing to the House floor a deeply flawed and deeply divisive bill 
that will not pass the Senate and would be vetoed if it reached the 
President's desk. They know that. I know that. Everybody knows that.
  The Protect Life Act is both unnecessary and clearly politically 
motivated. Republicans are resorting to their old bag of tricks and 
pulling the abortion card in order to distract from their clear lack of 
leadership. In April they rammed through H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer 
Funding for Abortion Act, instead of focusing on efforts to pass a 
clean continuing resolution that would prevent a government shutdown.
  As the deadline approaches for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit 
Reduction in Congress to approve a deficit reduction plan in excess of 
$1.5 trillion, Republicans have deemed it necessary to rehash the 
health care reform debate and roll back women's rights.
  And I want to clear up one thing. You keep saying ``ObamaCare.'' I've 
said repeatedly that there are those of us, and I am among them, that 
advocated for health care, including a public option and universal 
health care long before we even knew Barack Obama's name. So perhaps it 
should be called ``Hastings-ObamaCare.''
  This time, however, they take it to a new harmful extreme. The 
Protect Life Act is not about the regulation of Federal funds with 
regard to abortion services. The Hyde amendment already does that. This 
act is about restricting access to care and intimidating women and 
their families in the use of their own money.
  Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has prohibited the use of taxpayer 
money for funding abortions, unless the abortion is performed in the 
case of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother. The 
Affordable Care Act is no exception.
  Regardless of the facts, however, House Republicans continue their 
assault on a woman's right to choose. Contrary to popular belief, the 
Protect Life Act is not the Stupak-Pitts amendment of the 2009-2010 
health care reform debate. It goes far beyond Stupak-Pitts to impose 
unprecedented limitations on abortion coverage and restricts access to 
abortion services for all women.

[[Page H6872]]

  The Protect Life Act would have an adverse effect on women's access 
to reproductive services, especially for low-income minority women who 
are very likely to be underinsured or uninsured and use partial 
subsidies to purchase insurance.

                              {time}  1230

  It not only ends abortion coverage for women in the exchange who use 
their own private funds to pay for their insurance, but also 
essentially shuts down the private insurance market for abortion 
coverage. This act imposes crippling administrative burdens on 
insurance companies that choose to cover abortion care and bans 
abortion coverage from all multi-State plans, interfering with private 
insurance companies' decisions about what benefits to offer.
  Simply put, the Protect Life Act is a misnomer. It poses a direct 
threat to the health and lives of women by restricting access to 
termination services, including factually accurate information such as 
the availability and coverage of abortion care by insurance plans. Even 
more troubling is the fact that this act creates an exception to the 
obligation of hospitals to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment 
and Labor Act, which requires appropriate treatment and referral for 
emergency patients. If enacted, hospitals could refuse to provide 
abortion services to pregnant women whose lives are in critical danger. 
This is beyond irresponsible. It is, indeed, reprehensible.
  Finally, the Protect Life Act vastly broadens already expansive 
federal conscience laws without regard for patient protection or anti-
discrimination protection for providers of abortion services. It 
safeguards from federal preemption State conscience laws beyond 
abortion, which could allow providers to drop their coverage of other 
reproductive health services like contraception and possibly even 
reproductive care such as mental health services and HIV counseling.
  All I hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
especially those within segments of their party, is that they want the 
government to butt out. Why, then, are we considering legislation on 
the House floor that effectively overturns the privacy rights 
enumerated by the United States Supreme Court as well as increases 
burdensome government regulations on insurance companies? Congress 
should not be making personal health care decisions for women, and 
Congressmen really shouldn't be even involved in making personal health 
care decisions for women. That should be between a woman, her family, 
and her doctor.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank my good friend for yielding me the time.
  I stand in strong support of the Protect Life Act.
  I thank my good friend, my colleague, Congressman Pitts, for 
introducing this important legislation because this bill will help 
ensure that no funds authorized or appropriated by the President's 
health care law will be used to pay for abortion except in the cases of 
rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
  This is not something new. This is not something radical. This simply 
applies the bipartisan principles of the Hyde amendment, which has 
helped guide this Chamber's legislative deliberations for over three 
decades. It extends the same standards applied to Medicaid, the Federal 
Employee Health Benefits Program, and other federal programs.
  The American people, Madam Speaker, have made it quite clear that 
they do not want their taxpayer dollars used to fund abortions. And the 
Stupak-Pitts amendment, as we know, was gutted in the Senate. The 
President's Executive order stating that the Hyde amendment would apply 
is not enough. Why? It is flawed because Executive orders can disappear 
as quickly as they are issued. But the Protect Life Act will create a 
solid framework that will safeguard taxpayer dollars.
  We must protect the sanctity of an innocent human life, we must stand 
behind the rights of the unborn, and we must prevent taxpayer dollars 
from being used to fund abortions. That's why I'm proud to support the 
Protect Life Act and the rule for it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to 
tell me how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 23 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 26\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, with your permission, at this 
time, I am going to yield to a number of Members for unanimous consent, 
the first of whom is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because it is an assault 
on a woman's health and her right to make her own life decisions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield for a unanimous consent request to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because this extreme 
legislation is dangerous to women's health and does nothing to address 
the main issue affecting American families: the lack of jobs.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina will 
state it.
  Ms. FOXX. Is it appropriate for our colleagues across the aisle to 
make comments about the bill when they're asking unanimous consent?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members to confine 
their unanimous consent requests to a simple declarative statement of 
the Member's attitude toward the measure, either ``aye'' or ``no.'' 
Further embellishments will result in deductions of time from the 
gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, further parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. That declarative statement that you speak 
to, am I correct, Madam Speaker, that it could include a sentence?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A simple declarative statement is 
acceptable. ``Because tada-tada-tada'' would be an embellishment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. At this time, I yield for a non-
embellishment, unanimous consent request to the distinguished lady from 
California (Ms. Hahn).
  Ms. HAHN. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in 
opposition to this bill because Americans need us to focus on jobs 
right now, not this extreme bill that endangers the lives of women.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will begin deducting time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield for a unanimous consent request to 
the distinguished lady from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in opposition to this bill that is extreme, dangerous 
legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished 
lady from California, a former member of the Rules Committee, Ms. 
Matsui, for unanimous consent.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because it's extreme 
legislation that is dangerous to women's health and does nothing to 
address the jobs crisis facing America today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be charged.

[[Page H6873]]

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am very 
pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in opposition to this bill because it is an attack on 
women, and it does nothing to deal with the job crisis of this country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be charged.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the distinguished lady from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks in strident, strident opposition to this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor and the proud 
parent of two young boys--adopted young boys--whose family exists only 
because two women in two difficult situations in two different States 
chose life and gave us a family, I am proud to rise in strong support 
of the rule to allow the House to consider the Protect Life Act, led by 
my friend and colleague, Congressman Joe Pitts.
  Over a year ago, President Obama's health care plan was signed into 
law--despite a strenuous outcry by the American people--without 
significant and substantial prohibitions on federal funding for 
abortion. This funding of abortion through insurance plans, community 
health centers, and other programs created by the new health care law 
could have been avoided. But such language was intentionally left out. 
There have been restrictions on abortions and subsidies for over 30 
years, beginning with the Hyde amendment in 1976, and I'm proud that 
today we are acting in that spirit.
  Regardless of whether you are pro-choice or, like me, strongly pro-
life, Americans have always agreed we will not use federal tax dollars 
to subsidize or incentivize abortion. And you don't have to take my 
word for it.

                              {time}  1240

  In poll after poll, more than 60 percent of Americans oppose using 
Federal funding for abortions. More recently, two-thirds of Americans 
said we shouldn't subsidize health insurance that includes abortions.
  The President's health care plan fails to provide real conscience 
protection for health care providers who decline to participate in 
abortions by mandating that they not be discriminated against because 
of their religious faiths.
  The bottom line is that this bill we take up today strikes an 
important balance. It makes sure your Federal tax dollars are not used 
to subsidize abortions in the President's plan, and we make sure that 
people and institutions are able to care for their patients and are not 
forced to violate their moral principles.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to respect America's conscientious 
objections to abortion by voting for the rule and by voting for the 
Protect Life Act.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, earlier this year, we learned what 
opponents of choice really think of women when they attempted to 
redefine rape in H.R. 3, when they claimed to be fiscal watchdogs and 
then voted to repeal funding for family planning services and Planned 
Parenthood, which saves the public $4 for every $1 invested.
  Now they are pushing H.R. 358, the falsely named Protect Life Act, 
which, rather than protecting life, would actually allow hospitals to 
refuse lifesaving treatment to women on religious or moral grounds. 
This bill would also effectively ban comprehensive insurance coverage, 
which includes abortion care--even if a woman pays with her own private 
dollars.
  H.R. 358, like every extremist, antichoice measure before it reveals 
what choice opponents really think of women. Here is what I think of 
women: I think they should be able to make their own life choices about 
their own bodies.
  I think we should vote down this bill and every other destructive 
measure being pushed by those who think so little of our mothers, 
sisters, wives, and daughters.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Pompeo).
  Mr. POMPEO. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, and 
I want to thank Congressman Pitts for his hard work on this 
legislation.
  Kansas has long been on the front lines of defending life, and I join 
most other Kansans in acknowledging that life begins at conception. 
Nearly all Kansans understand that Federal taxpayer dollars should 
never be used for abortions.
  I know the history here. For a very long time, there was bipartisan 
support for the Hyde amendment and for legislation that said that 
taxpayer money should not go for abortions; but today, the left has 
moved so far that they object to this simple, commonsense measure which 
will protect taxpayers from their money going to a procedure which they 
find abhorrent.
  Simply put, we must end what ObamaCare did, and we must stop 
subsidizing abortions with Federal taxpayer dollars. I urge my 
colleagues to support both this rule and H.R. 358 and to protect the 
life of the unborn.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called Protect 
Life Act. Our first priorities here now must be to help to foster job 
creation and support middle class families.
  We are 280 days into this Congress without even having a jobs plan 
from the majority. Instead, the Republicans have chosen to continue 
their radical assault on women's health and health care in the guise of 
preventing the use of Federal funds to pay for abortion procedures.
  This bill is as unnecessary as it is offensive and inhumane. The bill 
would penalize private insurers that offer comprehensive plans; would 
allow hospitals to refuse lifesaving care to women; and would prevent 
access to birth control, including providing emergency contraception to 
sexual assault survivors.
  Instead of debating how to put Americans back to work, the majority 
party is spending our time on socially divisive bills that are going 
nowhere.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I rise in support of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act.
  Doesn't that name really say it all, the ``Protect Life Act''?
  Historically, the Federal funding of abortion has been restricted. 
Time and time and time again, an overwhelming majority of Americans has 
indicated that they oppose the Federal funding of abortion. Go all the 
way back to 1976. Congress has repeatedly passed the Hyde amendment.
  What does it do?
  It ensures that no Federal Government dollars are used to pay for 
elective abortion or insurance plans that provide elective abortion 
under Medicaid. Unfortunately, the insurance plan that was forced 
through Congress this last session would now allow Federal funds to 
subsidize, to basically support and pay for, abortions on demand in 
America for the very first time since 1976. So the Hyde amendment, as 
it stands today, only extends to HHS.
  The Obama health care plan, what does it do?
  It exploits that loophole. As the law now stands, the government can 
literally force that federally funded and private health care providers 
cover abortion under the guise of family planning or pregnant women 
services or countless other euphemisms.

[[Page H6874]]

  My friends on the other side of the aisle will say, Well, that's 
incorrect because President Obama signed an Executive order to bar 
abortion funding.
  No. Members on both sides of the aisle know that pointing to an 
Executive order is disingenuous at best. We all know, as we come to 
this floor, that this Executive order, the same one that the Planned 
Parenthood Federation of America calls a ``symbolic gesture,'' can be 
completely undone by a future administration.
  The only way to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not spent on 
abortion is--how?--through legislative action.
  President Obama's insurance plan passed Congress. It did so over the 
objection of the majority of the American public. So it is time now 
that we come to the floor to respect that majority of Americans and to 
ensure that they do not fund abortions simply by paying their taxes 
every April 15. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
bill, as I said at the very beginning, the Protect Life Act--the bill 
that says it all.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Speaker, recently, I got an email from a 
constituent from my hometown of Lowell, Massachusetts, that read, ``I 
think Republicans are focusing on the wrong thing. We need jobs.''
  Our constituents are pleading with us to focus on jobs; yet here we 
are again, debating an ideologically driven bill that does nothing for 
the economy as it endangers women's health. For women to receive the 
best possible health care, they need--we need--access to all legal and 
appropriate medical procedures. Decisions about these procedures should 
be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor and her family.
  I believe a woman's right to choose is fundamental to a woman's 
freedom, but this bill puts the government in the middle of that 
decision. This bill discriminates against women, and it goes so far as 
to prevent those who want to buy health plans that cover abortion 
services with their own money from making that choice. This bill also 
permits hospitals and hospital workers to choose to deny women care 
that could save their lives, putting ideology above women's health.
  Let's focus on the right thing and vote down this bill.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of both the rule 
and the bill.
  In 1973, the Supreme Court decided that a right to an abortion was a 
constitutional right, but they did not decide that there was a 
constitutional right to have the taxpayers pay for it.
  The Hyde amendment has been passed every year since 1976 with my 
support and with the support of an overwhelming bipartisan majority. 
However, when the President's health care bill was rammed through this 
House in March of last year, the Hyde amendment didn't apply. So, if 
you try to get a Medicaid abortion, the Hyde amendment applies, and the 
taxpayers don't finance it; but if you try to get an abortion under the 
Obama plan or under the exchanges that have been set up under the Obama 
plan, then there will be taxpayer money that will be used to pay for 
it. This bill closes that loophole. It is in response to the 
overwhelming sentiment of the American public, including the sentiment 
of many of those who do support legalized abortion.
  Secondly, this bill also reaffirms Federal and State conscience 
protection laws. The Supreme Court, when it decided Roe v. Wade, did 
not force people to choose between their faiths and their jobs if they 
had religious objections to abortion. This protection is not afforded 
in the Obama health care bill. This legislation closes that loophole.

                              {time}  1250

  We've heard a lot about jobs from people on the other side of the 
aisle that don't want to talk about the fact that this legislation 
shuts the door to the two loopholes that I have just described.
  Maybe there will be more unemployment if someone who has a license to 
practice medicine or is in the healthcare profession is told that they 
have to violate the tenets of their religion in order to keep their 
job.
  Now, we have a choice. We have a choice of freedom and liberty by 
closing the loopholes and passing the bill or not.
  I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished 
gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for the purpose of offering a 
unanimous consent.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record my 
opposition to this attack on women's access to reproductive health 
services and our fundamental right to lifesaving medical care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 358.
  There is no question and there can be no debating the fact that this 
bill endangers women's health and puts their lives at risk and intrudes 
on their constitutionally protected liberties.
  This bill extends the reach of government more cynically and in a 
more profoundly disturbing way than any piece of legislation in modern 
times.
  This bill carries with it the clear implication that under some 
circumstances--a woman just doesn't have a right to live.
  The Republican majority has consistently said its priority is jobs 
and job creation, but here we are debating a bill that even their 
Members admit is the wrong bill at the wrong time.
  Instead of creating jobs, they remain focused on creating obstacles 
for women to access safe, legal, and badly needed health care.
  H.R. 358 is an attack on women's access to reproductive health 
services and our fundamental right to life saving medical care.
  It is stunning in its scope, appalling in its indifference and 
outrageous in its arrogance.
  This bill is deliberately divisive and cynical in its intent.
  Madam Speaker, Americans want Congress to create jobs, strengthen 
middle class families, and find bipartisan consensus.
  It's time to end this attack on women and get to work on our top 
priority: Creating Jobs.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, this bill threatens the health and basic 
rights of American women.
  The majority is once again trying to embed their extreme and divisive 
ideological preferences into law. They are trying to impose their 
backward view of a woman's role on everyone else, forcing women back 
into traditional roles with limited opportunities.
  They need to trust and respect American women. The bill goes beyond 
prior legislation. It bans working women access to a legal medical 
procedure. It denies all but the wealthiest women their choice in 
health services. It puts the government between a woman and her doctor. 
It allows hospitals to deny life-saving care to women. We should be 
standing up today for the middle class by working to create jobs, not 
trying to prevent women access to lifesaving health services.
  This bill is an affront to women's health. I urge all of my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am a little appalled at some of the comments that I 
have heard across the aisle, especially those that say talking about 
jobs is more important than talking about saving lives.
  I don't believe there are many Americans who would agree with our 
colleagues who say that we in this country pride ourselves on saving 
lives at every opportunity, both humans, animals, any form of life, and 
I believe this is a worthy debate for us to be having today.
  But, Madam Speaker, the Republican-led House has also been working 
hard to rein in out-of-control government spending and represent the 
majority of the American people who elected us, and we know that by 
reining in spending we could do something to help create jobs. So we 
are not a one-note party. We understand we can do both of those things.
  The bill before us today is a continuing effort to steward the 
taxpayer money wisely, represent the majority

[[Page H6875]]

of Americans who believe taxpayer money should not be used to pay for 
elective abortions, and, thereby, protect innocent life.
  Last year, as others have said, the liberal Democrats rammed through 
their overall health care legislation and refused to include standard 
pro-life protections that have had broad bipartisan support in the 
past.
  The rule before us today provides for consideration of H.R. 358, the 
Protect Life Act, which prohibits taxpayer funding for elective 
abortions under ObamaCare and also prohibits the Federal Government 
from forcing private insurance companies to offer plans that cover 
elective abortions. It does not take away any rights of women.
  In addition, the underlying bill ensures that taxpayer subsidies for 
purchasing health insurance plans on the ObamaCare exchanges are not 
used to pay for plans that cover elective abortions, and does not allow 
the Federal Government to administer health plans that cover elective 
abortions. This is consistent with the history in our country of not 
using taxpayer funding for elective abortions.
  Finally, the bill provides for conscience protections for pro-life 
health providers and entities to ensure they are not discriminated 
against for their pro-life beliefs and practices.
  This bill has gone through regular committee consideration and passed 
the House Energy and Commerce Committee on February 15 with bipartisan 
support. The need for this legislation is critical, as the Institute of 
Medicine recommended in July that what has come to be called ObamaCare 
should cover emergency contraception with no copay or deductible. Many 
pro-life conservatives are concerned that their recommendation is a 
slippery slope to, again, what has been known as ObamaCare mandating 
and covering elective abortions, because the law does not contain 
specific longstanding pro-life protections.
  A Zogby poll last year found that 77 percent of Americans believe 
Federal taxpayer funds should never pay for abortion or should pay only 
to save the life of the mother, and it is unacceptable that the liberal 
Democrats ignored the will of the people last year in ramming through 
their government takeover of health care.
  As you can see, Madam Speaker, the vast majority of Americans don't 
want their tax dollars paying for or promoting abortion.
  This isn't part of a radical agenda, as some of our friends on the 
left like to say. This is part of a longstanding and growing social 
consensus. Americans do not want their tax dollars supporting the 
abortion industry or promoting this terrible practice.
  In May this House passed H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion 
Act. This legislation would codify many longstanding pro-life 
provisions and ensure that taxpayer money is not being used to perform 
abortions. H.R. 3 is now awaiting consideration in the Senate.
  As a proud cosponsor of H.R. 3 and H.R. 358, I will not cease to 
fight to protect the lives of the unborn at every turn. Since 1973, 
approximately 52 million children's lives have been tragically aborted 
in the United States. Until we have a permanent prohibition on taxpayer 
funding of abortion and protection for health care providers who 
cherish life, I will continue to offer and support efforts to protect 
taxpayers' families and children from the scourge of abortion.
  The unborn are the most innocent and vulnerable members of our 
society, and their right to life must be protected.
  Yesterday in the Rules Committee our friends across the aisle who 
spoke against this rule and bill said we're bringing up ``hot-button 
social issues as diversions from the important topic of jobs.''
  I have two responses to them on that comment. The issue of life is 
not a hot-button social issue; it's at the very core of our values as a 
country. We go to extraordinary lengths to save not only human beings, 
but even animals, because we value life so much. However, there are 
many who do not hold the unborn in the same esteem, and that is tragic 
for more than 1 billion unborn babies every year.
  Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule 
in favor of the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, would you tell us again how 
much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 18 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina has 13\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much.
  I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
giving me this opportunity.
  As a mother of five children, when I brought my baby, my youngest 
baby, number five home from the hospital, that week my oldest baby was 
turning 6 years old. The birth of a baby is such a jubilant occasion, 
and women's health is essential to the health of families and raising 
our children in a way that has respect for all of them.
  It's very interesting that we're taking this bill up now when the 
American people are calling out for jobs. Their number one priority is 
the creation of jobs, and once again we come to the floor of the House 
with a major distraction that ``ain't going nowhere'' in order to cater 
to an extreme agenda of the Republican majority.
  The American people want us to take up jobs. They want us to take up 
the American Jobs Act, which three-quarters of the American people say 
they want us to consider. It would create nearly 2 million jobs. Or we 
could vote on the China currency legislation which would save 1 million 
jobs and has the support of the majority of the Members, including 61 
cosponsors from the Republican side of the aisle. But again, instead, 
we are pursuing the Republicans' ideological agenda, forcing us to 
relitigate a very divisive issue.
  Every woman in America should be very concerned about this assault on 
women's health. Let us begin the debate with a very clear understanding 
of the facts. The Federal funding of abortion is already, and has been 
for a long time, prohibited under the Hyde amendment, except in cases 
of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
  Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act prohibits the use of U.S. 
taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. That is why the Catholic Health 
Association said: ``We are confident that health care reform does not 
allow Federal funding of abortion and that it keeps in place important 
conscience protections for caregivers and institutions alike.'' I 
repeat, the Catholic Health Association said: ``We are confident that 
health care reform does not allow Federal funding of abortion and that 
it keeps in place important conscience protections for caregivers and 
institutions alike.''
  This bill is a radical departure from existing law. It represents an 
unprecedented and radical assault on a woman's access to the full range 
of health care services. For the first time, this bill places 
restrictions on how a woman with private insurance can spend her own 
private dollars in purchasing health insurance. As a result of this 
bill, millions of women using health insurance exchanges are likely to 
no longer have access to insurance policies that cover all reproductive 
services.
  Furthermore, supporters of this bill falsely claim that this bill is 
simply a restatement of the Stupak amendment considered by the House in 
2009. It is not. This bill is very different from the Stupak amendment. 
It appears that health care providers could withhold care for women 
with life-threatening conditions. In other words, a woman could be 
dying on the floor of the hospital and, when you vote for this bill, 
you will be saying that caregivers would not allow medical 
professionals to treat that woman and keep her from dying.
  The Obama administration has come out strongly against this 
legislation, rightly saying it intrudes on women's reproductive freedom 
and access to health care and unnecessarily restricts the private 
insurance choices that women and their families have today.
  So just a few points again:
  Public funding of abortion is prohibited under the Hyde amendment 
except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother;
  The Catholic Health Association says: We are confident the Affordable

[[Page H6876]]

Care Act ``does not allow Federal funding of abortion and that it keeps 
in place important conscience protections for caregivers and 
institutions alike''; and
  Third, it is not the Stupak amendment.
  This legislation is bad public policy. It's the wrong priority for 
Congress. It's an assault on women's health, and women should know 
that. It prevents them from using their own dollars to buy their own 
private insurance should they be part of an exchange.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and implore the Republican 
majority to turn their attention to what this country needs, and that 
is jobs, jobs, jobs, and more jobs.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues across the 
aisle that they are entitled to form their own opinions, but they are 
not entitled to form their own facts which are in opposition to what is 
true.
  Our colleagues across the aisle know that the Hyde amendment applies 
only to discretionary spending, has to be introduced every year into 
the appropriations bill, and has never applied to mandatory spending.
  The Affordable Care Act is mandatory spending, and if the protection 
for life were in the Affordable Care Act, then why did President Obama 
issue his Executive order saying that he was clarifying the issue?
  Ms. DeGETTE. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. FOXX. I will not yield.
  I think it is very important that we get the facts out here again. 
Several of my colleagues have pointed those out.
  The gentlewoman has time on her side and she will be able to make her 
points.
  I now would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Mississippi 
(Mr. Nunnelee).
  Mr. NUNNELEE. I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, 
which would prohibit Federal funding for abortions and would end 
abortion coverage under President Obama's health care law.
  As a member of the Mississippi State Senate, I introduced similar 
legislation that would have prevented hard-earned tax dollars of 
Mississippians for paying for abortions under ObamaCare. That 
legislation specifically allowed Mississippi to opt out of using the 
State tax money to pay for abortions in the State health care exchange. 
And I'm proud to say that in May of 2010, our Governor, Haley Barbour, 
signed that legislation into law and Mississippi became the third State 
in the Nation to approve the abortion subsidy opt-out.
  For 16 years, it was my privilege to stand up for life on the floor 
of the Mississippi Senate. And I'm proud to say that as a result of 
that effort, Mississippi is now one of the safest States in the Nation 
for unborn children and one of the strongest pro-life States in the 
Nation. Today, I'm proud to take that voice to the floor of the House 
of Representatives in our Nation's Capitol.
  ObamaCare should not have served as a vehicle for abandoning or 
weakening Federal policies on abortion funding. Health care is about 
saving and nurturing, not about taking human life. Even though 
President Obama signed an Executive order to address abortion funding 
concerns in the health care bill, an Executive order is not law. The 
Protect Life Act would strengthen long-standing Federal policies on 
abortions; and, more importantly, would codify the principles of the 
President's Executive order.
  As I stand here today, I have the privilege of serving the First 
District of Mississippi in the United States House of Representatives, 
and I will continue to fight to protect the lives of the innocent and 
to serve as a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves. 
Americans recognize the value of life.
  As a cosponsor of this legislation, I urge my colleagues in the House 
of Representatives to support this bill as we work to defend the morals 
of our taxpayers and give the needed protections to the unborn.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
place my statement in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very 
pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Davis).

                              {time}  1310

  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Since my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle did not yield to my colleague from Colorado, I want to yield to 
her.
  Ms. DeGETTE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I just wanted to point out that while the gentlelady on the other 
side is correct that the Hyde amendment is in the annual appropriations 
bills, if she would look at section 1303(b) of the Affordable Health 
Care Act, the provisions that say no Federal funding shall be used to 
pay for abortion are extended to that Act and to the exchanges. So in 
fact, the Democratic leader is correct. Under the Affordable Health 
Care Act there are no Federal funds used under that Act to pay for 
abortions, period, end of story.
  I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I thank my colleague for clarifying that.
  Madam Speaker, we have had this discussion many times on the floor. 
That's why my colleagues and I want to get back to the issues at hand 
today, which is jobs and enhancing and supporting the middle class in 
this country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. But I want remind us all that what we were 
talking about here is denying millions of women from purchasing 
comprehensive coverage with their own private funds. This would upend 
the promise of health care reform for many, many women across this 
country. We need to put a stop to these attacks on women's health. I 
urge my colleagues to join me as well in strong opposition.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. How much time is remaining again, Madam 
Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 15\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina has 10 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. At this time I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, when you ask Americans what Congress' 
focus should be, guess what they don't say? They don't say, Forget 
about jobs. What this country really needs is a divisive assault on 
women's privacy and primary care.
  This bill tells women, Madam Speaker, that if they use their own 
money, using their own money they can't purchase insurance that 
includes abortion coverage. Isn't it the majority party that is 
constantly saying that they trust people with their own money? I guess 
that applies if you're a CEO but not if you're a woman making a 
wrenching decision about your reproductive health.
  This bill has no chance of becoming law. It is a dog-and-pony show 
designed to please the far-right fringe. I say: Do it on your own time, 
Republicans, and not on the American people's time.
  I ask us to vote ``no'' now and get to the job at hand, which is to 
put America back to work.
  Ms. FOXX. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman, my good friend from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. Madam Speaker, it's not news that the majority refuses to 
address our jobs crisis. But passing time by attacking women's health 
is appalling.
  Despite Americans' overwhelming support for the American Jobs Act, 
today we have before us H.R. 358, a cruel attack on women's health. We 
could help jobless workers feed their families today. Instead, this 
bill grants hospitals the right to deny abortions even in life-and-
death cases. We could cut taxes for small businesses today. Instead, 
this bill forbids Americans

[[Page H6877]]

from using their own dollars to buy private health insurance that 
includes abortion coverage. We could put teachers back to work today. 
Instead, this bill denies abortion even for the thousands of women each 
year who develop breast cancer while pregnant and need an abortion to 
start chemotherapy to save their lives and retain the hope of 
childbirth.
  Americans don't want a war on women. They want a war on joblessness. 
They want us to work so that they can work. They want us, Madam 
Speaker, to take up the American Jobs Act. Oppose this rule so that we 
can get to work on their behalf.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, our colleague across the aisle I think was not here 
earlier when we talked about the fact that the jobs bill, which he says 
has overwhelming support by the American people, was introduced by 
request and has not a single cosponsor. I'm curious as to why he is not 
a cosponsor if he thinks we should be bringing up that bill.
  I would also like to point out again that this bill, this rule, is 
not a war on women. And if this is such a cruel act, I want to point 
out that this is a bipartisan bill, and that the support for not giving 
taxpayer funding for abortions has always been nonpartisan or 
bipartisan in this House.
  This is not purely a Republican issue. I thank God every day for our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are pro-life.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished 
woman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. EDWARDS. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks 
in opposition to this bill that doesn't create jobs but strips women of 
appropriate reproductive health care services.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, with 21 legislative days remaining on the 
calendar, I urge my colleagues in the Majority to finally bring to the 
floor a jobs bill that puts Americans back to work rather than work to 
restrict a woman's right to receive affordable and comprehensive care. 
Bills like the falsely named Protect Life Act only serve as cover for 
the Republicans' unwillingness to bring forth a real jobs plan and 
restore the economy.
  This Republican package is wrapped in a label that says, ``I care'', 
but contains nothing more than an empty promise. Let me be clear--this 
bill jeopardizes the health and wellness of women throughout this 
country and is a clear assault on women's choice. I have heard from 
women throughout Maryland and across the 4th Congressional District who 
value access to and information on abortion services. I have heard from 
women who have had planned and wanted pregnancies, but suffered 
unexpected and costly complications. I have heard from women like Mary 
who, after undergoing years of fertility treatment, had finally been 
pregnant with her son David, but found out that due to atrophy of his 
lungs and kidneys there was virtually no chance of his survival beyond 
a few hours. I have heard from women who are faced with difficult, 
personal, and emotional choices about their health and that of their 
children.
  These are the women who need access to health care when they face 
unexpected health complications. H.R. 358 would allow hospitals to deny 
care to patients whose lives are in peril, while also denying many 
Americans, not just women, access to safe, affordable, and 
comprehensive care when they need it most.
  It is simply unfair, unwise, and irresponsible for this Chamber to 
decide what health care options women and families are able to explore. 
I urge my colleagues to oppose both this unfair rule that does not 
allow any amendments and the underlying, mean-spirited legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished lady from California (Ms. Chu).
  Ms. CHU. H.R. 358 would stop abortion coverage for millions of women. 
It allows doctors and hospitals to refuse treatment even if women will 
die without their help. This bill is so extreme that it prohibits a 
pregnant woman with cancer from getting an abortion so radiation can 
save her life. For those women, every day and every week of treatment 
could be the difference between life and death.
  If this bill passes, we will see thousands more women abandoned by 
their doctors--women like Stephanie, who was pregnant at 19 weeks. She 
came to the hospital with a 108-degree fever. The whites of her eyes 
were filled with blood. She was dying before her doctor's eyes. But the 
hospital considered the life of the fetus more important than the life 
of the mother and refused treatment until the fetus died. Because they 
delayed, Stephanie almost lost her life.
  This bill should really be called the ``Don't Protect the Life of the 
Mother Act.''
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Harris).
  Mr. HARRIS. Much has been said on the floor about perhaps taking time 
out from a jobs agenda to pass the bill. The fact of the matter is this 
bill corrects a problem with the bill that shouldn't have been 
discussed by the last Congress; they should have spent time dealing 
with the jobs issue instead of leaving it to this Congress. So we do 
need to make a correction.
  Madam Speaker, this one very important correction is the conscience 
protection in this bill. And I know as someone who's worked in a 
hospital where abortions are done--but they never forced me to do it 
because we have conscience protections in the State of Maryland. We 
need those conscience protections for everyone in the country, so that 
if you don't believe in abortion, you don't have to participate in it. 
That's a basic freedom, a basic religious freedom, we should protect 
for every single American health care provider.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to introduce into the Record four letters 
from obstetricians who work in facilities who point out that the 
conscience clause is not going to harm anyone's health in this bill. 
There's no evidence that it will.
  Madam Speaker, in conclusion, the conscience protection clause is 
needed. It's a correction for the work of the last Congress. We should 
pass this bill.

                                             Virginia Commonwealth


                                     University Health System,

                                   Richmond, VA, October 12, 2011.
     Hon. Joe Pitts,
     Hon. Dan Lipinski,
     Hon. Eric Cantor.
       Dear Representatives Pitts, Lipinski, and Cantor: I 
     understand that the House of Representatives may soon 
     consider H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act. As a physician I am 
     especially interested in this bill's section reaffirming 
     federal protection for health care providers' conscience 
     rights on abortion. I have heard there may be an effort in 
     the House to insert an exception into this law, so 
     governmental bodies can discriminate against providers who 
     decline to provide abortions in ``emergency'' cases.
       As a physician who has worked in emergency rooms for over 
     30 years, I am well versed in the federal Emergency Medical 
     Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and similar policies. 
     I continue to practice emergency medicine, and to teach it at 
     Virginia Commonwealth University. Based on then decades of 
     experience, I see absolutely no merit in the claim that 
     conscience laws on abortion pose any risk of allowing 
     pregnant women to die in emergency rooms. Current federal 
     laws as well a Virginia state law respect conscientious 
     objection to abortion in all circumstances and I have never 
     seen or heard of a case in which these laws created any 
     conflict with women's safety or with legal obligations to 
     stabilize patients' conditions in emergencies.
       Your provision on conscience protection is warranted and I 
     do not think it should be weakened in any way.
           Sincerely,
     Edward J. Read Jr., MD, FACEP.
                                  ____

                                      University of North Carolina


                                           School of Medicine,

                                Chapel Hill, NC, October 12, 2011.
     Representatives Joe Pitts and Dan Lipinski,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Pitts and Lipinski: I am a board 
     certified specialist in Obstetrics and Gynecology with a sub-
     specialty certification in Maternal-Fetal Medicine. I have 
     over twenty-seven years of experience in practice, teaching 
     and research at a major academic health center. During my 
     career I have cared for numerous women and babies with 
     complications that increase the risk of maternal death. In 
     some of these situations, both a mother and her baby have 
     lost their lives. I care deeply about the effects that public 
     policy and legislation can have on both those of us who 
     provide perinatal care and on our patients.
       My personal conscience directs me to provide the best of 
     care to pregnant women and their unborn children and I am 
     able to do so without performing abortions, as are several

[[Page H6878]]

     of my colleagues and a proportion of the residents we train 
     each year. I have not seen a situation where an emergent or 
     even urgent abortion was needed to prevent a maternal death. 
     I am aware of, and have read, sections 2(a)(6) and 2(a)(7) of 
     H.R. 358 and I am writing to provide my opinion that I 
     support the formalization of these protections. No woman at 
     UNC hospitals has ever been denied care due to her conscience 
     or beliefs; nor does any physician ever feel obliged to 
     direct or change the standard of care for any woman due to 
     race, ethnicity, religion, or conscience. I see no need for 
     any exceptions or amendments to the law as written.
       I am available for question or comment or for further 
     discussion on this matter. You may reach me at 
     thorp@med.unc.edu or by calling my office (919) 843-7851.
           Sincerely,
     John Thorp, MD.
                                  ____

         Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West Virginia 
           University,
                                 Charleston, WV, October 12, 2011.
     Representatives Joe Pitts and Dan Lipinski,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Pitts and Lipinski: I am writing in 
     support of Sections 2(a)(6) and 2(a)(7) of H.R. 358 that 
     provide federal legal protection of conscience regarding 
     abortion for those who care for pregnant women. My experience 
     includes 20 plus years of clinical care, research, and 
     instruction as a Board certified Obstetrician & Gynecologist 
     and Maternal-Fetal medicine. I daily provide care for women 
     and babies who have medically complicated, life-threatening, 
     and uncommon pregnancy complications. Further, as the 
     originator of ``perinatal hospice'', I have cared for (and 
     still do) dozens of women with babies who have terminal 
     prenatal diagnoses who will die shortly after birth.
       No one in my entire 20 plus years of clinical experience 
     has ever been denied appropriate care because of the exercise 
     of rights of conscience in the provision of abortion. Women 
     and babies may die in spite of our best efforts, but this is 
     not related to abortion availability or provision.
       In my understanding of this new federal statute, conscience 
     will now be formally and legally protected. There is no need 
     for additional exceptions or amendments to this law as it is 
     written.
       I am more than happy to discuss this issue with either of 
     you or with one of your colleagues. I may be contacted by 
     email at byron.calhoun@camc.org or directly on my cell phone 
     at (304) 741-4031.
           Sincerely,
     Byron G. Calhoun, M.D., FACOG.
                                  ____



                                      University of Minnesota,

                                Minneapolis, MN, October 13, 2011.
     Representatives Joe Pitts and Dan Lipinski,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Representatives Pitts and Lipinski: I am a board 
     certified specialist in Obstetrics/Gynecology and Maternal/
     Fetal Medicine with 31 years of experience in practice, 
     teaching and research. During that time I have cared for 
     hundreds of women and babies with life-threatening, 
     complicated, and rare pregnancy conditions. In some of those 
     situations mothers and babies have lost their lives despite 
     undergoing the best available treatment including induced 
     delivery at the margins of viability. I care deeply about the 
     effects that public policy and legislation can have on the 
     care of mothers and babies.
       During my years of practice I have worked under informal 
     and formal conscience rights protections that permit me to 
     provide the best pregnancy care without being forced to 
     perform abortions. I have read Sections 2 (a) (6) and 2 (a) 
     (7) or H.R. 358 and I agree with the federal formalization of 
     these protections. In my years of practice I have never seen 
     a woman denied appropriate care because of the exercise of 
     rights of conscience in this regard. There is no need for 
     additional exceptions or amendments to this law as it is 
     written.
       I am happy to discuss this with either of you or with one 
     of your colleagues. I can be reached by email at 
     calvis@umn.edu or on my cell phone at 612-868-9199
           Sincerely,
                                                 Steve Calvin, MD.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, this bill seeks to undo women's 
constitutional rights under the guise of being about government funding 
for abortion. The law, unfortunately, already forbids Federal funds 
from paying for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or where 
the woman's life is in danger. This bill goes well beyond that. It 
would make it virtually impossible for any of the health plans offered 
through the health exchanges set up as part of the Affordable Care Act 
to cover abortions.
  As the authors plainly intend, it would make it virtually impossible 
for most women to buy insurance coverage for abortions with their own 
money. The bill would also allow a doctor or hospital to refuse to 
provide an abortion to a woman whose life is in imminent peril. They 
could let that woman die right there in the emergency room, and the 
government would be powerless to do anything.

                              {time}  1320

  Madam Speaker, I remember a time not that long ago when women had no 
options for legal abortions and had to resort to illegal back alley 
abortionists. Women were butchered, many died, others became sterile, 
all because the medical care they desperately sought and the compassion 
they desperately needed was denied to them. No woman should be treated 
with this contempt.
  The real purpose of this bill--which denies women the right to 
purchase insurance coverage for legal abortions, even with their own 
money--is to make it impossible for women to exercise their 
constitutional right to choose for themselves.
  This bill is an abomination. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague 
across the aisle that if we have a constitutional right for taxpayer 
funding of abortions, then we should have a right to taxpayer funding 
of guns. The Second Amendment allows us to keep and bear arms.
  I now would like to yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague 
from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam Speaker, if anyone is concerned about our jobs 
program, go to gop.gov.jobs. That's all the bills we've introduced so 
far that we have passed--most of the time you have not participated, 
but indeed it directly addresses the need for more jobs.
  Secondly, I think we may have some common ground, it just may be that 
we have not read the same bill. For example, folks keep saying that 
this will not allow women to purchase coverage even with their own 
money. May I direct folks to page 6, line 8: Premiums for such coverage 
or plan--it goes on to say--may be used as long as it's not government 
money. It can be the individual's own money.
  Third, there is this kind of myth that this will prevent women from 
having abortions. Medicaid currently does not pay for abortions; there 
are many Medicaid women who get abortions. The Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program does not cover abortion. I suspect--although I don't 
know--that there are many women covered by the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program who indeed get abortions. Empirically, we know what's 
being asserted is not true.
  Then there is the question of whether or not they're going to be 
denied lifesaving health care. If you go to page 4, line 20: This does 
not apply in the case where a pregnant woman suffers from physical 
disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified 
by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion 
is performed.
  So I think we have common ground.
  The leader on the other side's next point said that this is a 
dramatic departure from current law, but that's kind of a curious term 
or phrase, because we know that current law is the President's health 
care plan. It is current law that has turned upside down the 
equilibrium that had been reached between freedom of faith for the 
provider to practice versus the dicta of State as to what to provide. 
So she is right; it dramatically overturns current law--that's the 
point--because the Affordable Care Act dramatically overturned that 
delicate balance.
  Lastly, I want to point out something else. I'm a physician. I work 
in a hospital for the uninsured, and I teach medical students. I was 
there last Monday teaching medical students. You know, over 50 percent 
of the residents, probably 60 percent of the residents doing OB/GYN are 
women, and many of them are concerned about issues like this.
  As we speak about women, let's not also forget the woman's right to 
practice her faith. And if she chooses to practice her faith in a way 
which preserves life, she should not be coerced by the dictates of an 
overreaching State.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished lady from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page H6879]]

  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and this 
bill. Instead of focusing on jobs, Republicans are continuing to wage 
their war on women with this dangerous legislation today.
  This bill forces comprehensive coverage for women to be dropped from 
the State exchanges, cutting off millions of women from affordable, 
comprehensive health care. And you know that Federal funds have not 
been allowed for abortion since 1976--to my dismay--and nothing has 
changed.
  This bill makes it virtually impossible for any health care plan to 
offer abortion coverage and allows hospitals to refuse--mind you, 
refuse--to provide lifesaving care to a woman who needs an abortion to 
protect her own life. This is unprecedented and should be rejected.
  We cannot and must not allow the Republicans to turn the clock back 
on women, on choice, and on our access to health care. I remember the 
days of back alley abortions--women died, women were injured for life. 
Let's not go back there.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this unnecessary and harmful 
legislation. Health care decisions should be made by women and their 
health care providers, not Republicans and the House of Representatives 
who want to impose their own ideological agenda on women. We should be 
creating jobs, not interfering with women's reproductive rights.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. At this time, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to this so-called Protect Life Act. This bill is another 
egregious, over-the-top assault on America's women, their health and 
their autonomy over their bodies. Instead of doing what we've been sent 
here to do, focus on jobs, once again we are talking about this extreme 
Republican right-wing agenda against women.
  What we're essentially talking about is going back to the dark ages 
here. We started this Congress by talking about ending Federal support 
for birth control, a debate that women in my district thought ended a 
generation ago. And now we're going so far as to say that women can't 
even have access to information about the full extent of choices with 
respect to their health care.
  This is a war on women. This is a distraction from job creation. We 
should reject this bill; we should end this assault on women's health 
care; and we should get back to the work that we were sent here to do, 
to fix this economy for everyone in this country, women and men, 
together.
  Ms. FOXX. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition.
  I'm not surprised by this bill. In March, they tried to close down 
the Federal Government over a woman's right to go to Planned Parenthood 
for health care, and today they are trying to close down a woman's 
right to lifesaving treatment in our hospitals.
  They call this ``protecting life.'' It is the opposite of protecting 
life, Madam Speaker. This allows hospitals to deny lifesaving treatment 
to women. It limits essential health care services to women. It denies 
preventive health care to women. It even hurts the victims of rape and 
sexual assault who have been hurt enough.
  Madam Speaker, the American people want a Republican majority that 
will help create a climate for small businesses to create jobs, not 
create a climate of war against women's health care. They want a war on 
unemployment; they do not want a war on women. They want more jobs and 
less extremism. This bill is about extremism, and it ought to be 
defeated.
  Ms. FOXX. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. I thank my friend.
  Madam Speaker, how much floor time do we have to spend on redundant 
legislation that will surely die in the Senate and has already been 
threatened with a veto?
  We've had this debate. We know what the final result will be. Federal 
funding of abortion is already illegal except in cases of incest, rape, 
and life-threatening situations. We accept that. But while millions of 
Americans are losing their jobs and seeing their life savings 
evaporate, the Republican majority insists on wasting our time on 
publicly demagoguing a deeply personal issue.
  This bill also contains a refusal clause that would allow emergency 
room health professionals to deny lifesaving care to a pregnant woman 
because of their personal beliefs. Evidence shows that barriers to 
abortion services increase the risk of maternal injury and death, and 
that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is with accurate 
sexual education and the widespread availability of contraception. Yet 
the same people who oppose abortions also oppose appropriate sex 
education and family planning services.
  The Supreme Court has ruled abortion is legal. Federal funds don't 
pay for abortion. Those policies are in place. Let's move on with help 
for the millions of unemployed individuals who need a good job and 
leave the women of America alone to control their own body and their 
own lives.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished colleague from 
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, health care is a necessary element to 
a good and orderly and compassionate society. We all support health, 
but abortion is not health care.

                              {time}  1330

  The vast majority of Americans do not support using their dollars in 
support of the abortion industry, and Americans should not be forced by 
the strong arm of the government to subsidize the abortion industry.
  Here's the problem. The health care law passed in 2010 contains some 
serious flaws in this regard. Namely, now the Federal Government will 
subsidize insurance policies that cover abortion on demand.
  The health care law also forces enrollees in health care plans that 
cover abortion to pay for abortions obtained by others. The health care 
law also gives license to Federal agencies to mandate abortion 
coverage.
  We have just seen that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
Kathleen Sebelius, under the guise of preventative care, has now 
promulgated rules that will force everyone to pay for abortifacient 
drugs and not to mention sterilization. And this also tramples on the 
conscience rights of health care entities that do not perform or 
promote abortion.
  Madam Speaker, I believe this: The Protect Life Act is in the 
interest of the right type of health care for America.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. It's unfortunate that we have to come to 
the floor of the House to discuss the personal decisions that a woman 
has to make. And I can assure you that the question of choice, the 
question of abortion, the question of what a woman does to her body is 
not one that a woman takes lightly. On many occasions, there is the 
necessity for a doctor and his female patient to make decisions to save 
the life or health of the mother.
  Just as the federal courts have ruled unconstitutional and rejected 
the Texas law that requires a doctor to talk first to a woman seeking 
an abortion and to allow or force them both to listen to sounds that 
might discourage this needed action, this is going to be held 
unconstitutional. This is not a law that can pass. You can not tell a 
woman her insurance company can not provide her all the benefits of 
that coverage. It goes way beyond the pale.
  I would ask my colleagues to vote against this rule and protect the 
right of a woman to choose and the dignity of all people in this Nation 
to make their own decisions over their lives, through consultation with 
her family, faith leader and doctor. I am saddened that we're here 
today discussing such an issue. Please vote no on this rule and for a 
woman's right to choose.

[[Page H6880]]

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. We all know that the ObamaCare bill allows for both 
the implicit and explicit taxpayer funding of abortion, and we all know 
that the Executive order signed by the President is not worth the paper 
that it was written on. It repeats the accounting gimmick that allows 
for Federal subsidies to go to insurance plans that cover abortion. And 
that's why we need to pass the Protect Life Act, which would apply the 
principles of the Hyde amendment to every component of ObamaCare. The 
Protect Life Act eliminates that accounting gimmick and ensures that 
Americans are not forced to pay an abortion surcharge, if you will, in 
order to get a health care plan. It ensures State laws are not 
preempted by Federal law.
  This is the right move, the right bill. Americans deserve to have 
this assurance.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, this is nothing more or less than an 
attack on poor women.
  I stood beside the bed of a couple of women in the Buffalo General 
Hospital in 1963 and watched them die because of back alley abortions.
  I was in the State legislature in 1970 when we, in the State of 
Washington, granted, by referendum, a vote of all the people, the right 
of women to have an abortion. Now the question is how to get it paid 
for.
  Well, when I came to Seattle, if you wanted an abortion, what you did 
was you went down and bought a ticket to Japan; you flew to Japan, had 
an abortion, had a day of shopping in Tokyo while you made sure that 
you were okay medically; and then you came home. Rich women never had 
any problem, but the women that I stood next to as they died and left 
12 kids without mothers were poor. And that's what this is really all 
about. It is an attack by the right wing who consider that they wrap 
themselves in theological raiment and then attack poor women. Christ 
wouldn't have done that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, 
and I would ask the gentlelady if she is prepared to close.
  Ms. FOXX. I am.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much.
  Madam Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I won't take all of that time, Madam 
Speaker, but I do wish to assert into this debate, it's been said often 
on the other side, and my distinguished friend from the Rules Committee 
made the point, that people came here and said that jobs were more 
important than life. I didn't hear anybody say that, and I don't 
believe anybody believes that.
  But what I do believe that most of us understand is that this is not 
going to become the law and, therefore, what we are doing, in the final 
analysis, is a waste of time, and we could have been trying to do as we 
have not done in this session of Congress, address the subject of jobs.
  Madam Speaker, what we have before us is an extremely flawed bill; 
and, contrary to their self-professed commitment to an open process, 
this particular provision being considered is under a closed rule.
  Furthermore, I would also like to call into question how it's 
possible for us to consider this bill on the House floor when its 
sponsor, Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania, failed to provide a statement 
citing Congress's constitutional authority to enact it. Mr. Pitts's 
statement of constitutional authority for the Protect Life Act cites no 
provision of the Constitution or any amendment to the Constitution.
  Therefore, I would like to request of him or Members on the other 
side to share with us the basis for this bill which violates the 
fundamental right to privacy upheld by the Supreme Court. It restricts 
women's access to health care and imposes further regulations on health 
insurance coverage. It's clear that the Protect Life Act lacks both 
constitutional and moral integrity.
  Let me insert additionally some feelings that have been expressed in 
public, and I take the prerogative of using them here on the floor.
  H.R. 358 comes on top of votes by the Republican-led House to 
eliminate all Federal funding for title X, the National Family Planning 
Program, to eliminate funding for all other reproductive health 
programs offering breast and cervical cancer exams or well-woman and 
primary health care and family planning to prevent unintended 
pregnancies and to reduce the need for abortion.
  They've led measures that eliminate requirements in health care 
reform covering maternal health care, mammograms, breastfeeding 
support, and other essential health services.
  In addition, they've made it impossible for women to speak to their 
doctors about abortion using Internet-based telemedicine.

                              {time}  1340

  Now, these are just a few examples. The Republicans are full of fuzzy 
facts. I start my day almost every day, Madam Speaker, by reading the 
cartoon, after other parts of the newspaper, ``Get Fuzzy.'' And the cat 
in that particular cartoon constantly comes up with fuzzy facts. If you 
put all the fuzzy facts together and all the things that the Republican 
majority has done, they include Tea Party-led efforts to gut 
Environmental Protection Agency rules that keep the air we breathe, the 
water we drink, and the environment in which we live safe. They have 
done efforts to virtually eliminate child nutrition. And I can't 
believe that 20 years I'm here, and I hear Republicans talk about 
cutting out the Head Start program, the one documented program that has 
benefited American society over and above what was thought.
  They have done things to eliminate programs to help the unemployed to 
survive, to slash Medicaid and Medicare, to effectively abrogate any 
social contract and tear to shreds any social safety net.
  I have to ask, exactly whose lives are we protecting here?
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, our position on taxpayer funding for elective abortion 
is bipartisan, bicameral, and supported by the majority of the American 
people. We all know that.
  I'd like to point out to my colleagues across the aisle when they 
keep saying we need to be talking about jobs, when the Democrats took 
control of the Congress in 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent. 
Between then and the time that Republicans regained control of the 
House this January, the unemployment rate rose to over 9 percent--6.9 
million more Americans became unemployed during that period of time. 
I'd also like to point out to my colleague that the constitutional 
authority for H.R. 358 is in the Congressional Record. He knows it's 
required when the bill is introduced.
  Madam Speaker, the American people are probably a little confused by 
listening to this debate because they hear two very conflicting 
stories. I would like to urge them to go to thomas.gov. H.R. 358 is 
only nine pages long. It's very simple to read. It's not like what they 
call the Affordable Care Act, which we had to get passed before we 
would know what was in it.
  There is nothing more important, Madam Speaker, than protecting 
voiceless, unborn children and their families from the travesty of 
abortion. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to put aside all this 
rhetoric that has been spoken of in this debate today and vote for life 
by voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

[[Page H6881]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 248, 
nays 173, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 786]

                               YEAS--248

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--173

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bachmann
     Broun (GA)
     Cardoza
     Giffords
     Herrera Beutler
     Hoyer
     Langevin
     Lewis (GA)
     Paul
     Polis
     Slaughter
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1407

  Ms. ESHOO and Mr. DICKS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. FRANKS of Arizona, FLEMING, STIVERS, Mrs. BIGGERT, and Mr. 
CAMP changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 786 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes.''

                          ____________________




    

All articles in House section