January 24, 2017 - Issue: Vol. 163, No. 13 — Daily Edition115th Congress (2017 - 2018) - 1st Session

[Pages H620-H633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7, NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION 
           AND ABORTION INSURANCE FULL DISCLOSURE ACT OF 2017

  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 55 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 55

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7) to 
     prohibit taxpayer funded abortions. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. CHENEY. 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 Wyoming?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House 
Resolution 55, which provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 
7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full 
Disclosure Act. This bipartisan bill will codify and make permanent 
what is commonly referred to as the Hyde amendment and expand Hyde 
amendment restrictions to all Federal agencies.
  First offered in 1976, the Hyde amendment prevents taxpayer dollars 
from being used to fund abortions through government programs like 
Medicaid. These restrictions have been maintained for more than 40 
years through the annual appropriations process, including the most 
recent continuing resolution passed last December. It is time that 
these important protections against the use of taxpayer funding to pay 
for abortion be made permanent.
  A GAO report in 2014 found that, under ObamaCare, over 1,000 
insurance plans covered elective abortion. Those plans are purchased 
with taxpayer subsidies. H.R. 7 would stop this and make ObamaCare 
conform to the Hyde amendment. If the Hyde amendment had been applied 
to ObamaCare, as President Obama promised it would be, the number of 
federally subsidized plans with elective abortion coverage would have 
been zero.
  As we work to repeal and replace the deeply flawed ObamaCare, we need 
to ensure taxpayer subsidies are not used to pay for abortion coverage.
  According to a Marist Poll conducted last July, 62 percent of 
respondents--a majority of the women asked--and including 45 percent of 
those who identify as pro-choice do not support taxpayer funding for 
abortions. H.R. 7 simply codifies and makes permanent a protection 
against the use of taxpayer funding for abortion that the majority of 
Americans and certainly a majority of my constituents in Wyoming 
support.
  Therefore, I urge support for the rule to allow consideration of H.R. 
7.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) for the 
customary 30 minutes.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to yet another 
closed rule. Last night in the Rules Committee, there were three 
thoughtful amendments that were brought forward. They were all germane 
and all complied with the rules of the House. Yet, once again, the 
Republicans in the Rules Committee denied each and every one of them.
  There is no opportunity for any amendments to be heard here today and 
no opportunity for there to be a real debate, and I regret that very 
much. Again, that is the trend that we see in this Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I also oppose the underlying bill. I have a 
fundamental belief that politicians in Washington should not have the 
right to interfere in the health decisions of a woman; and this 
deceptively titled bill will do just that. It continues this Republican 
majority's never-ending crusade against women, and it is an attempt to 
take away the constitutionally protected right to abortion services for 
millions of women, especially middle class and low-income women. That 
is wrong.
  Madam Speaker, these healthcare decisions should be made between 
women and their doctors, not politicians in Washington.
  Who the hell are we in this Chamber to make these private and 
oftentimes painful decisions for women?
  Republicans claim that this bill is about codifying the Hyde 
amendment, which has been around for four decades. That is 40 years too 
long, in my opinion. But this bill isn't really about the Hyde 
amendment. Despite what Republicans claim, this extreme and sweeping 
bill would go even further by placing unprecedented limits on women's 
access to reproductive health services even if they want to pay for 
abortion coverage out of their own pockets.
  Placing restrictions on how women with private insurance can spend 
private dollars when purchasing health insurance would radically change 
our Nation's longstanding policy. It is deeply troubling and must not 
become law.
  Madam Speaker, just days ago during the nationwide Women's March, 
millions of people gathered all across the country and around the globe 
to defend women's rights. These marches were likely the single largest 
day of protest in American history. More than half a

[[Page H621]]

million people took to the streets right here in our Nation's Capital; 
and I was proud to march with these dedicated men and women, along with 
my wife and my daughter. My son, I am also proud to say, joined the 
march in Boston.
  The marches were peaceful. Not a single arrest was reported in 
Washington, D.C. And they were also clear, sending a message to each of 
us that women's rights are human rights.
  But far from respecting those rights, the majority is here today 
attacking a woman's constitutional right to make her own decisions 
about her health, her family, and her future.
  Despite this dangerous bill passing the Republican-controlled House 
in previous Congresses, it has traditionally died in the Senate; and I 
hope the Senate keeps with that tradition.
  The ultimate goal of congressional Republicans and of Donald Trump is 
to overturn Roe v. Wade. Make no mistake about it. They want to take us 
back to the days of back-alley abortions where women lost their lives. 
That would be an awful thing to do.

  I hope people who believe in upholding a woman's right to choose are 
watching this debate, and I hope that they are just as outraged as I am 
by this attempt to roll back women's healthcare rights. I hope they 
call their Representatives in Congress today to speak out. This is a 
time for action, and we need all of you to make your voices heard.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, our colleague on the other side of the aisle 
asked: Who the hell are we to be here speaking on this legislation and 
passing this legislation?
  Well, Madam Speaker, we are the Representatives of the people of this 
country.
  Madam Speaker, the most conservative estimates show that we have lost 
54 million children to abortion since 1973. In a nation founded upon 
principles that recognize the dignity of every human life, we should 
not tolerate this extermination of innocent lives.

                              {time}  1245

  The majority of Americans recognize this tragedy for what it is, and 
there is consensus among them that they do not want their tax dollars 
paying for a practice they sincerely oppose, and we are their 
representatives.
  Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has been included in relevant 
appropriations bills to prohibit Federal funding of abortions. Each 
year it has been consistently renewed and supported by congressional 
majorities and Presidents of both parties.
  Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office indicate that the Hyde 
amendment has prevented hundreds of thousands of abortions each year. 
That means millions of Americans are alive today because of the Hyde 
amendment. After 40 years, it is time for this lifesaving amendment to 
become permanent law.
  H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance 
Full Disclosure Act, makes the Hyde amendment and other current 
abortion funding prohibitions permanent and government-wide. This 
commonsense measure restores a longstanding agreement that protects the 
unborn and prevents taxpayers from being forced to finance thousands of 
elective abortions.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote to respect our 
Nation's consensus on abortion funding and affirm life by voting in 
favor of this rule and H.R. 7.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, a few days ago, I stood immersed in a sea 
of women, of men, and of children of all colors, creeds, and 
backgrounds; citizens who fiercely believe that the diversity of their 
opinions anchor, that they do not undermine, the values that we share, 
and that their personal activism and unique advocacy could be traced 
back to one collective, guiding principle--equality.
  As hundreds of thousands of people swarmed this Capital, Boston 
Common, town greens from Wilton, New Hampshire, to Newport, Oregon, 
they sent a clear message to their government that when you treat any 
of us as less, you threaten all of us.
  And that is what this bill does. It tells women across this country 
that their health can be compromised; that constitutionally guaranteed 
means something different to them than it does to men.
  If this was a simple attempt to limit a woman's legal right to 
abortion or reproductive health care, that would be bad enough. But it 
is more than that.
  Combined with yesterday's reinstatement of the global gag rule, this 
bill crystallizes the fact that our new GOP-led government sees women's 
health care as expendable, both within and far beyond our borders.
  Make no mistake, if my colleagues continue down this path, I know 
that there will be a few million men, women, and children willing to 
keep marching.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just note that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have referred several times now to the massive turnout for the women's 
march here, and we, ourselves, will be having, I am sure, a very large 
turnout this week; as well as I would like to point out that that 
women's march excluded groups that were pro-life women's groups. And so 
the notion that somehow it was reflective of all women in this Nation 
is fundamentally misleading.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes of my time to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith), the cosponsor of this bill who has done tremendous 
work.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentlewoman for yielding, and I want to thank her for her leadership, 
for being one of the prime cosponsors of the bill, H.R. 7, along with 
Mrs. Black, Ms. Foxx, Mrs. Wagner, Mrs. Blackburn, Mrs. Noem, Mrs. 
Hartzler, and all the others who have joined in as sponsors of this 
lifesaving legislation.
  I would also like to thank Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McCarthy, 
Whip Scalise, and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers for their 
extraordinary leadership in defending the most innocent and the most 
vulnerable among us, unborn children, as well as providing protections 
for their mothers, and for bringing this legislation, H.R. 7, to the 
floor.
  Forty years ago, Madam Speaker, Congress enacted the Hyde amendment, 
a law that continues to this day to proscribe Federal Medicaid funds 
from being used to subsidize abortion in most circumstances.
  More than 20 peer-reviewed studies show that more than 2 million 
people are alive today, 2 million, because of the Hyde amendment. Two 
million people who would have been aborted, instead, survived because 
public funds were unavailable to effectuate their violent demise, while 
their mothers benefited from prenatal health care and support; 2 
million survivors who have had the opportunity to live and to enjoy the 
most basic and the most elemental of all human rights, the right to 
life.
  Madam Speaker, we are experiencing a megatrend in America, 
consistently reflected in polling data, including the most recent 
polling data from the Marist Poll yesterday, that showed that 61 
percent of Americans are against public funding for abortion, and most 
want, even those who identify as pro-choice, more restrictions to 
protect the innocent unborn.
  People are seeing the truth of who abortion actually destroys, as 
today's proudly shared, first baby pictures are most often of 
ultrasound imaging photos depicting the amazing miracle of the 
developing child in the womb.
  Growing numbers of Americans are often shocked to learn that the 
methods of abortion include dismemberment of a child's fragile body, 
including decapitation, and the severing of arms and legs, or the use 
of drugs like RU-486 that literally starve the child to death before 
forcibly expelling her or him from the safety of the womb.
  Yet, the billion-dollar abortion industry continues to cleverly 
market the chief sophistry of choice, while going to extraordinary 
lengths to cover up, ignore, and trivialize the battered victim child 
in the womb.
  Madam Speaker, pro-life Americans struggle for the day when abortion 
violence will be replaced by compassion and empathy for women and 
respect for

[[Page H622]]

the weak and most vulnerable among us, the child in the womb. They 
believe, as do my pro-life colleagues, that we ought to love them both, 
mother and child, and not fund the destruction of children through 
abortion.
  Lawmakers also need to hear the courageous voices of women who are 
silent no more, a rapidly expanding number of women who share the agony 
and heartbreak that they have endured after procuring an abortion.
  As I mentioned, yesterday there was a poll that came out, and, again, 
it found that 61 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding for 
abortion, and only 35 percent support it, which is precisely what we 
seek to accomplish with enactment of H.R. 7. It would make the Hyde 
amendment and other current abortion funding restrictions permanent and 
government-wide.
  I would note, parenthetically, that soon after the Hyde amendment was 
enacted in 1976, other abortion funding riders were enacted into law, 
and Hyde itself was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1980.
  In 1983, I authored the ban on funding abortion in the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits program. Most must be renewed legislatively 
each and every year. This legislation would make it permanent.
  The legislation ensures that the Affordable Care Act, until repeal, 
conforms with the Hyde amendment.
  I would remind my colleagues that just a few feet from where I stand, 
on September 9, 2009--and I have his speech right in front of me--the 
President of the United States said: ``And one more misunderstanding I 
want to clear up--under our plan, no Federal dollars will be used to 
fund abortions, and Federal conscience laws will remain in place.''
  Well, on the latter, the conscience laws remained in place, but they 
were just simply not enforced.
  And of course we know now, as my good friend, Ms. Cheney, mentioned, 
we know that, according to the GAO--because people kept saying in the 
early years, oh, there is no funding, public funding for abortion, so 
we asked GAO to look into it. They came back and said there is much--
over 1,000 plans pay for abortion on demand.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article that 
appeared in The Washington Post: ``Does Obamacare provide federal 
subsidies for elective abortions?'' It talks about the GAO report, and 
it basically says that those who claim that it does, they earn three 
Pinocchios.

                            [Jan. 26, 2017]

    Does Obamacare Provide Federal Subsidies for Elective Abortions?

                        (By Michelle Ye Hee Lee)

       ``The president's health-care law authorized massive 
     subsidies to assist millions of Americans to purchase private 
     health plans that will cover abortion on demand. In other 
     words, hard-earned taxpayer dollars are now being used to pay 
     for elective abortions. This is simply unacceptable.''--Rep. 
     Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), House debate, Jan. 22, 2015
       The argument that the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. 
     Obamacare, provides federal subsidies for abortions came up 
     several times during the House debate on an antiabortion 
     bill.
       The bill would prohibit using federal funds for any 
     abortions or for any health plans that cover abortions. Under 
     Obamacare, federal funds can be used to cover abortions for 
     pregnancies caused by rape or incest, or that endanger the 
     mother's life. But no federal subsidies for premiums can be 
     used for elective abortions. The House debate centered on 
     whether this restriction is being enforced, and whether 
     additional protection for taxpayers are needed.
       There often is overheated rhetoric in the abortion debate 
     that cannot be fact-checked. (The Fact Checker previously 
     examined Democrats' claims following the Hobby Lobby ruling.)
       The bill's opponents, who support abortion rights, say the 
     system works and that the measure would unnecessarily 
     restrict women's private insurance choices. Lawmakers who 
     oppose abortion rights don't buy it; they say the system is 
     just an accounting gimmick. The goal of this fact check is 
     not to relitigate the debate but to examine evidence to 
     support the above statement, which was repeated throughout 
     the debate.
       Foxx, one of the lawmakers arguing for the bill, was among 
     several Republicans who claimed federal subsidies are paying 
     for elective abortions. Does this accurately portray how 
     abortions are covered under Obamacare?


                               The Facts

       The House passed H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion 
     and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015, on the 
     anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. 
     The bill was a watered-down measure that the House took up at 
     the last minute after GOP leaders pulled an initial, more 
     restrictive bill.
       Public funding for abortions is intricately structured. 
     Under the Hyde Amendment, federal funds can't be used for 
     elective abortions under Medicaid-funded plans. Some states 
     do pay 100 percent of the cost of elective abortions without 
     passing on any cost to the federal government.
       Under Obamacare, health insurance plans could cover some or 
     all elective abortions, but they can't use federal tax 
     credits and subsidies to offset the cost. Insurance providers 
     that cover elective abortions must charge consumers 
     separately and deposit the money into a separate account that 
     contains no federal money. Providers need to bill enrollees 
     separately for elective abortions by itemizing them 
     separately in monthly bills or sending separate bills.
       States can pass laws to ban or restrict health plans from 
     providing coverage for elective abortions. In 2014, 23 states 
     restricted coverage for these procedures. There were 1,036 
     plans in 28 states that provided some or all coverage for 
     elective abortions.
       In a speech to Congress and a subsequent executive order, 
     President Obama gave assurances that federal subsidies would 
     not be used to cover elective abortion services. He ordered 
     Health and Human Services and the Office of Management and 
     Budget to issue a guideline for states so they can comply 
     with billing and funding segregation requirements.
       Obama's not keeping his promise, say supporters of H.R. 7. 
     Staffers for Foxx and two of the other lawmakers who made 
     similar claims--H.R. 7 sponsor Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and 
     Rep. Ana Wagner (R-MO.)--pointed to a September 2014 
     Government Accountability Office report. At the request of 
     GOP leaders, the GAO examined whether health plans were 
     following the elective abortion billing requirements.
       GAO picked 18 plans in 10 states with no laws restricting 
     abortion coverage as a non-probability sample representing a 
     quarter of all health plans that cover elective abortions. 
     GAO found 17 of 18 issuers were not separately billing 
     consumers. The one remaining issuer said its bills show there 
     is a charge ``for coverage of services for which member 
     subsidies may not be used.''
       These issuers did not give blanket coverage for all 
     abortions. One covered abortions that a health-care provider 
     determines necessary, and two limited coverage to no more 
     than one elective abortion a year. All 18 issuers had payment 
     requirements such as co-pays, deductions and out-of-pocket 
     costs.
       The report did not examine whether the providers were 
     illegally using federal subsidies to pay for elective 
     abortion services. In response to the report, HHS released a 
     new set of regulations to clarify billing and funding 
     segregation requirements.
       Experts say the GAO's findings do not necessarily mean 
     insurance providers are inappropriately using federal 
     subsidies to cover abortion services. There is no government 
     or industry agency tracking insurers' compliance, making it 
     impossible to know whether providers are following the law, 
     they said.
       ``It's really not clear how these different plans are being 
     operationalized,'' said Alina Salganicoff, Kaiser Family 
     Foundation's director of women's health policy.
       The GAO report found premium amounts collected from 
     elective abortion services ranged from 51 cents to $1.46 per 
     enrollee per month. To put this in context, the national 
     average premium for a 40-year-old person purchasing coverage 
     through the marketplace was between $224 to $270 per month, 
     according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. (An earlier, non-
     age-specific average monthly estimate was $241.) Even if the 
     maximum charge ($1.46) was added to the cheapest health plan 
     ($224), the elective abortion surcharge is less than 1 
     percent of the monthly bill.
       The key point made by lawmakers and advocacy groups who 
     oppose abortion rights is that money is fungible, and that it 
     doesn't matter exactly how the money is being collected. A 
     dollar is a dollar, they say, and every dollar paid to an 
     insurance provider in the marketplace ultimately goes into 
     collective risk pools that are used to rim government-
     subsidized health insurance, so taxpayers are effectively 
     paying for elective abortions.
       ``The point is the federal subsidies provided for those 
     1,036 plans are funding abortion just as much as the private 
     funds contributed by the individual. That is consistent with 
     the commonly held understanding that money is fungible and 
     the funds received by the insurance company are used to pay 
     all benefits,'' Sheridan Watson, Foxx's communications 
     director, wrote to The Fact Checker.


                           The Pinocchio Test

       The GAO's report found that the insurers it studied were 
     not following billing requirements. But experts say that does 
     not necessarily mean the providers were illegally using 
     federal subsidies for abortions. Even if they were, Foxx's 
     statement that Obamacare authorized ``massive'' subsidies is 
     an exaggeration. Based on the estimates above, abortion 
     charges would range from 0.2 percent to 0.65 percent of an 
     enrollee's monthly bill.
       The claim that ``hard-earned taxpayer dollars'' are paying 
     for abortions ``on demand'' implies that taxpayers foot the 
     abortion bill for any woman who requests one. But in reality, 
     some providers still imposed their own restrictions on which 
     abortions to cover, and all 18 issuers had payment 
     requirements, such as out-of-pocket costs and co-pays.

[[Page H623]]

       Lawmakers like Foxx who oppose abortion rights discredit 
     the billing and funding separation requirement for elective 
     abortion services. Billing doesn't matter, they say, because 
     federal tax dollars used for subsidies pay for everything in 
     a health plan. This is an opinion, and something that can't 
     be fact-checked. But to say that massive federal subsidies 
     are paying for abortions on demand is not an accurate 
     portrayal of this complex issue, and the facts in the GAO 
     report do not support this argument.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
7.
  On Saturday, I joined millions of women, men, and children who took 
to the streets and raised their voices in defense of equality. We 
marched because women's rights are truly human rights. We marched 
because women should be able to make their own choices about their own 
bodies. We marched because everyone deserves health care, not just the 
privileged few.
  And yet, here we find ourselves voting on another Republican attempt 
to cut off reproductive health care from the people who need it the 
most. H.R. 7 would be devastating for all women, but would 
disproportionately impact low-income families, women of color, 
immigrants, and young people.
  But we were reminded this weekend that, as women, our destinies are 
tied together, and we will not be silent as Republicans attempt to 
interfere with a woman's constitutional right to choose. Women are 
watching.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule 
to provide consideration of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for 
Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. This bill is, 
quite literally, the least we can do for American taxpayers and our 
voiceless unborn.
  Frankly, the fact that we are even here discussing this, and that 
there is opposition to this bill at all, really does break my heart, 
and it speaks to the depths of the entanglement with the big abortion 
industry that exist in some corners of this Chamber. Because, at the 
end of the day, you know what this bill really is about? The right to 
choose.
  We hear our friends across the aisle use the phrase a lot. But what 
about the other right to choose, the right of the taxpayer to choose 
not to pay for the practice that violates everything that they believe? 
That is what we are here to protect.
  The American people support this policy, with 6 in 10 surveyed saying 
that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortions. And these 
are both pro-life and pro-choice.
  So today, Madam Speaker, I am asking my colleagues across the aisle 
to honor the will of their constituents. I am asking them to remember 
the good old Democratic rallying cry of safe, legal, and rare abortion. 
Obviously, abortion is not rare today when over 330,000 abortions are 
performed in 1 year.
  If my colleagues still believe these words, they will join us in 
supporting this modest solution to keep unsuspecting taxpayers off of 
the hook for this practice. And if they can't vote for this bill then 
there is truly not a single limit on abortion that they will accept, 
and that is a sad commentary on the state of politics.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just clarify for the Record that there is no Federal funding 
for abortion. All you have to do is read the Hyde amendment, which has 
been in effect for 40 years. I don't support it, but that is the law of 
the land.
  The majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal. So if you 
want to talk about polls, the overwhelming number of Americans believe 
that abortions should be safe and legal.
  I also would like to say that while my colleagues are working 
overtime to try to defund organizations like Planned Parenthood, it is 
because of Planned Parenthood, the counseling that is provided, and the 
reproductive services that are provided at their clinics, and 
contraception, that the number of abortions have decreased in this 
country.
  Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question. And if we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to 
bring up legislation, which I am happy to be a cosponsor of, along with 
Ms. Eshoo, that would require sitting Presidents and Presidential 
nominees to disclose their last 3 years of tax returns.

                              {time}  1300


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the 
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation 
of the rules of the House.
  The gentleman may continue.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Despite the long tradition of Presidents and 
Presidential nominees of disclosing their tax returns, Donald Trump has 
refused to release his, and his spokesperson recently said that he has 
no intention of doing so. The American people expect and deserve 
transparency, which this legislation would ensure.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, between his refusal to release his tax 
returns and all these business conflicts of interest, this Presidency 
is on a collision course with corruption.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support our effort here.
  To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I thank our wonderful colleague from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding to me.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question 
so that this bill that I have authored, the Presidential Tax 
Transparency Act, can be made in order for immediate floor debate and a 
vote.
  Now, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act would require the 
President and future Presidential nominees of both parties to disclose 
their tax returns. Many Americans took for granted that this was 
covered by law, but what we have had is a decades-long tradition of 
voluntary disclosure by both Republican and Democratic nominees for the 
Presidency.
  For the first time since the immediate post-Watergate era, candidate 
Trump and now President Trump has refused to release his tax returns to 
the public. Those who seek or hold the most powerful office in the 
world should be held to the highest standard of transparency to ensure 
the best interests of the American people are met.
  Tax returns provide an important baseline disclosure because they 
contain highly instructive information, including whether the candidate 
paid any taxes, what they own, what they have borrowed and from whom, 
whether they have made charitable donations, and whether they have 
taken advantage of tax loopholes or offshore tax shelters.
  The President and his spokesperson have both recently said that he 
will not release his tax returns because the American people ``don't 
care.'' I beg to differ. The top petition on the Web site of the White 
House calls for the release of the President's tax returns with over 
300,000 signatures already on it. A Washington Post-ABC News poll 
released last week found that 74 percent of the American people, 
including 53 percent of whom are Republicans, believe the President 
should release his tax returns. We want a President free of conflicts 
of interest.
  For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the previous 
question and to vote for the Presidential Tax Transparency Act.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, it is no surprise that our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle would rather talk about just about anything besides 
the text and the substance of the rule and the bill that we are about 
to consider.

[[Page H624]]

  The transparency that is important to this debate and that is 
relevant for this discussion today is transparency that is in the rule 
and in this bill that would require that insurance companies make sure 
that people understand what they are purchasing and whether or not they 
are purchasing a plan that will, in fact, provide abortion coverage.
  I also just want to note that although there may be some in this 
Chamber who view The Washington Post Fact Checker as the oracle and 
font of all wisdom, he got this one wrong, as he has in many cases, 
and, in fact, failed to understand that there are, as we meet here 
today, monthly advanced payments of U.S. taxpayer funding going to 
insurance companies or to exchanges to pay for health insurance plans 
that subsidize abortion on demand.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Jody B. Hice).
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from 
Wyoming.
  Madam Speaker, regardless of attempts from the other side to distract 
and derail what we are discussing, the vote today is on the permanent 
application of the Hyde amendment, which would ban taxpayer dollars 
from being used for abortion.
  The truth is that taxpayers get up and go to work every day. They 
work by the sweat of their brow. The majority of them find the practice 
of abortion to be a serious violation of their personal beliefs. Under 
that situation and scenario, it is unconscionable that this body would 
even consider taking the money of those hardworking taxpayers and using 
their money to fund abortion.
  The Hyde amendment has traditionally maintained bipartisan support. 
It has been signed into law by both Democratic and Republican 
Presidents since 1976. In addition to that, the Supreme Court has 
upheld the law, doing so in 1980, ruling that, regardless of the 
freedom recognized in Roe v. Wade to terminate a pregnancy, there is 
not a constitutional entitlement to use taxpayer money to finance such 
an act.
  The Hyde amendment has saved the lives of roughly 300,000 unborn 
children annually. It is bipartisan, it has been upheld by the Supreme 
Court, and it protects taxpayers who have a conscientious objection. So 
I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support H.R. 7 when it comes before the full House for a vote today.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I just would like to assure my colleague from Wyoming 
that we are not trying to distract when we bring up the issue of the 
President's tax returns, but we have no opportunity here to be heard. 
The bill before us, as I mentioned in my opening statement, is a closed 
rule. It is a Putin rule, if you will, where it is their way or the 
highway and where no debate is allowed on alternative ideas. We had 
three thoughtful amendments brought before the Rules Committee last 
night, all germane, all in compliance with the House rules. They 
rejected all three of them.
  On the issue of the Presidential tax returns, yes, we are bringing it 
up because the American people want to know whether there are conflicts 
of interest. They don't want the White House to be known for being a 
place of corruption. They want our Presidents to follow the rules and 
the laws of the land. So people want to know, but we have been given no 
opportunity to do that.
  So forgive me if we take procedural motions to try to make our point, 
but my colleagues on the Republican side lock us out of any opportunity 
to be heard. The Rules Committee has become a place where democracy 
goes to die, I am sad to say, and I hope that changes.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, like many of us this past Saturday, I marched in 
Washington with millions of women across the country claiming their 
human rights and claiming their basic individuals rights. Madam 
Speaker, the previous speaker on the other side made mention of the 
fact that the Hyde amendment is the law of the land and that it has 
been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. We know. We get it. 
That is not what this is about.
  This is about going well beyond that and actually limiting what women 
can do and what individuals can do with their own money when acquiring 
health care that includes the reproductive health services that are the 
subject of this debate.
  How many times do we have to come to the floor to make the point that 
choices about women's health care should be made between a woman and 
her doctor, not somebody in Washington dictating to women what they can 
do with their own money and with their own bodies?
  Do you know what else is the law of the land? Do you know what else 
has been upheld by the Supreme Court almost a half a century ago?
  That fundamental right that women have over the determinations they 
make for themselves about their own bodies. That has been upheld by the 
United States Supreme Court as well.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Babin).
  Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
  Madam Speaker, for the past 30 years, through the Hyde amendment, the 
U.S. Congress has acted to prevent taxpayer money from being used to 
pay for abortions. The bipartisan Hyde amendment has been an annual 
rider on appropriations bills, but ObamaCare bypassed this abortion 
funding prohibition leading to the largest expansion of taxpayer 
funding of abortion in American history since Roe v. Wade.
  That is why we desperately need to pass H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer 
Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act to 
permanently codify the Hyde amendment and apply it across the entire 
Federal Government. This bill will also ensure that the prohibition is 
not subject to annual threats and it will close the massive loophole 
that was created by ObamaCare.
  Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has saved the lives of over 2 million 
babies--roughly the same number of people who live in the city of 
Houston, Texas, where I serve as a U.S. Representative. For the sake of 
these 2 million people and the millions more that will be saved, we 
must permanently codify the Hyde amendment's pro-life protections.
  Furthermore, as ObamaCare presented the largest expansion of 
abortions since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case, we must ensure that 
the Hyde amendment covers all areas of the Federal Government. This 
will ensure that taxpayer dollars are no longer used to subsidize 
abortions.
  H.R. 7 is a critical piece of legislation that is supported by nearly 
two-thirds of the American people who do not want the government to be 
in the business of killing unborn babies. Congress must act to preserve 
the Hyde amendment for posterity and to put an immediate end to the 
ongoing harm being done with taxpayers' money.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for the passage of this 
much-needed bill to end taxpayer funding of abortion once and for all.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez), who is the vice chairwoman of the Democratic 
Caucus.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7, the 
misnamed No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
  Just 2 days ago, our Nation celebrated the 44th anniversary of Roe v. 
Wade, affirming that a woman has a constitutional right to make the 
decision of what is best for herself and her family. However, 
Republicans have been relentless in their pursuit to deny women this 
constitutional right, and H.R. 7 is just another reckless example.
  H.R. 7 will have devastating consequences on every single woman in 
America. The bill would deny women, families, and small businesses tax 
credits if they elect an insurance plan that covers abortions. The IRS 
would be inserted into one of the most important and private decisions 
a woman can make and one that should be solely between her and her 
doctor. That is the most egregious and offensive example of government 
overreach that I can think of.

[[Page H625]]

  Madam Speaker, women are responsible. Women are smart. Women know 
what is best for them, and women can make their own choices. Allow them 
to do that and vote against H.R. 7.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).
  Mr. HULTGREN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming. I 
am so grateful to be here to talk on this important subject.
  Madam Speaker, Thomas Jefferson once said: ``The care of human life 
and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object 
of good government.''
  It is with Jefferson's words in mind that I rise today as an original 
cosponsor in support of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and 
Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act.
  This legislation sustains Mr. Jefferson's vision of good government. 
It makes permanent the Hyde amendment restricting Federal funding for 
abortions and thereby ensuring the care of human life and not its 
destruction. Most Americans oppose the use of their tax dollars to pay 
for abortions.
  Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has saved nearly 2 million unborn 
children and continues to save more than 60,000 lives in the United 
States every year. Americans also deserve to know--before they purchase 
it--if their healthcare plans cover elective abortion.
  H.R. 7 addresses the abortion secrecy clause in the Affordable Care 
Act. It requires qualified plans to disclose to enrollees at the time 
of enrollment whether a plan covers abortion. Americans should never be 
forced to pay for someone's abortion. This legislation will restore the 
status quo on government funding for elective abortions and make this 
policy permanent and consistent across the Federal Government.
  I commend Congressman Smith and Congressman Lipinski for their 
bipartisan cooperation in introducing this bill, and I am pleased to 
support it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, let me tell you about 
Chelsea, a mother of two young children, who was on Medicaid when she 
was diagnosed with cervical cancer. She never missed her birth control 
pills, but when she went to the clinic for treatment, she was told that 
she was pregnant and could not get the surgery she needed because of 
the pregnancy.

                              {time}  1315

  Why is that? Because of the Hyde rule, Medicaid would not cover the 
abortion care that she needed, and her cancer treatment was delayed, 
obviously compromising her health.
  Instead of discussing ways to make Chelsea's situation better, we are 
considering a bill that would make the ban on abortion care services 
under Medicaid permanent.
  This is not about women asking for free, federally funded abortions. 
This is about women like Chelsea being able to receive the medical care 
they desperately need.
  We saw this weekend millions of women took to the streets throughout 
our country in a historic movement. So let's show them that we are 
listening by rejecting this bill that makes bad policy permanent.
  Madam Speaker, let's leave a woman's medical decision between her and 
her doctor and reject this far-reaching bill.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I am just heart sick today to hear some 
of my colleagues talking about how they were celebrating the 44th 
anniversary of Roe v. Wade. That is 60 million babies--little girls, 
little boys--who have been aborted and no longer have a chance to live. 
We could have had perhaps a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's. Who knows 
what the potential of those 60 million lives could have been.
  So it is hard to hear my colleagues talk about a celebration of that 
and using the terminology that this bill deals with abortion care. 
Abortion isn't care and abortion isn't services. It is taking a life.
  This bill does nothing to change Roe v. Wade, although I wish it 
could, but it simply says that taxpayers do not have to participate in 
it. The taxpayers all across this country who believe that every life 
is precious work hard and send in their money every April 15. They 
entrust it to us, their elected officials. We have national security 
issues, we have roads, we have education. They don't want to see it go 
to something like taking a life through abortion.
  So this is what we are doing today, simply making permanent a policy 
that we have had to put in as an amendment to appropriations every year 
and fight for. This is just making sure that, here in Washington, in 
America, the taxpayers invest in women's health care and are not 
investing in abortion.
  We should be about saving lives, not taking them. That is what this 
bill does. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 7, a dangerous attack on the right of women to 
make their own decisions about their health and their bodies.
  On Saturday, I, too, joined the peaceful march in our Nation's 
Capital with hundreds of thousands of women and men. Millions more 
marched in Oregon, across the country, and around the world to demand 
that our voices be heard.
  This legislation, one of the majority's first priorities under the 
Trump administration, won't create jobs. It will create barriers to 
reproductive health care for countless women. It will 
disproportionately affect low-income women, young women, women of 
color, women in rural communities, and immigrant women. This bill turns 
back the clock. It puts women's lives at risk.
  Restricting abortion does not make it go away. It makes it unsafe. 
This bill will drive women back to back alleys.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on H.R. 7.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, 44 years ago, the Supreme Court made an 
important decision. It said that women have a constitutional right to 
make decisions about their own health care and their own bodies, not 
the government.
  It was just a few days ago that millions of American women marched 
all across the United States, reaffirming their opposition to efforts 
to take away their rights. That is what this bill would do.
  There has been a lot of discussion about taxpayers funding abortion. 
That is not currently the law, not only in the Hyde amendment, but the 
Affordable Care Act requires women who wish to have this coverage to 
pay for it themselves.
  We have heard a lot about alternative facts recently, but the fact is 
there is no taxpayer money for abortion in the United States--there 
hasn't ever been for many years--and that was also the accommodation 
that the Supreme Court made.
  Let's make sure that the constitutional rights of women to control 
their own bodies is not attacked.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to make a point in terms of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle and the constant reference to women, 
women, women, as though all women believe what they believe.
  They have very strongly held views on the other side of the aisle, 
but the notion that somehow all women can be categorized as being pro-
abortion is just simply wrong and, frankly, offensive to those of us 
who have different views.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to say, at this point in time, that we 
are not making any kind of a dangerous attack on women's rights.
  My colleagues have accused us of being relentless. We are relentless. 
We are relentless, Madam Speaker. We are relentless in defense of the 
unborn, the most vulnerable among us.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, I rise to support this rule and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 7.

[[Page H626]]

  For decades, Congress has annually passed the Hyde amendment, which 
has prevented any government program from funding or subsidizing 
elective abortion. The Hyde amendment has saved over 2 million unborn 
children since 1976, including 100,000 lives in Pennsylvania.
  For decades, this annual restriction on taxpayer funding of abortion 
has been referred to as the Hyde amendment because it was the late 
Congressman Henry Hyde from Illinois who sought to protect as many 
unborn children as he could during his service in Congress. 
Recollecting his own work, Congressman Hyde offered this poignant 
reflection:
  ``When the time comes as it surely will, when we face that awesome 
moment, the final judgment, I've often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, 
that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates, you 
are there alone standing before God--and a terror will rip through your 
soul like nothing you can imagine. But I really think that those in the 
pro-life movement will not be alone. I think there will be a chorus of 
voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard 
beautifully and clearly in the next world--and they will plead for 
everyone who has been in this movement. They will say to God, `Spare 
him because he loved us'. . . . ''
  Henry Hyde is not forgotten, and this work goes on.
  Despite former-President Obama's promise that no abortion would be 
covered by his healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act authorized and 
appropriated funds for healthcare plans with abortion coverage. This 
must stop.
  We must remember, abortion is not health care, and in no way should 
the government fund or subsidize the violent destruction of unborn 
children.
  It is the overwhelming opinion of Americans, including those who 
identify as pro-choice, that taxpayer dollars should not be used for 
abortion. This legislation is absolutely essential to apply the 
principles of the Hyde amendment consistently across the Federal 
Government.
  As hundreds of thousands march this Friday on the 44th anniversary of 
Roe v. Wade, a decision Justice White referred to as an exercise in raw 
judicial power, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank my good 
friend from the great State of Massachusetts for his extraordinary 
leadership on this issue and so many others and for standing up for 
women. The right to speak is a very special one.
  Madam Speaker, the right to choose is meaningless without the access 
to choose. That is what this bill is about. It is cutting off access to 
choice. That is why the anti-choice movement is so strongly behind this 
bill.
  H.R. 7 is a cynical attempt to use the Federal Government's power of 
the purse to restrict a woman's access to her constitutionally 
protected right to an abortion.
  I oppose the Hyde amendment and believe that we should be increasing 
access to comprehensive health care, not reducing it. But this bill 
makes the Hyde amendment permanent. It goes further. It prohibits the 
Affordable Care Act tax credits for individuals and employers who 
choose plans that cover abortion.
  H.R. 7 would restrict abortion coverage or make such coverage too 
burdensome or expensive for many Americans to afford. It is a step back 
towards a dark and ugly time when anti-abortion laws took a substantial 
toll on women's health and, in many cases, cost them their very lives.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I will just remind Members 
that, in order to gain votes of several pro-life Democrats needed for 
passage of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama issued an executive 
order on March 24, 2010, and it said:

       The Affordable Care Act maintains current Hyde restrictions 
     governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to 
     newly created health insurance exchanges.

  The problem is, it never happened.
  There were people who are saying even today that there is no taxpayer 
funding for abortion. Yes, there is. We finally went to the GAO. We 
asked them to do a study, an audit. They spent a full year on it and 
confirmed that the plans that we were subsidizing with taxpayer dollars 
covered abortion.
  I remind my colleagues that, under the Hyde amendment, plans that pay 
for abortion are precluded from receiving government funding. 1,036 
Affordable Care Act exchange plans were found to have abortion on 
demand being paid for by the taxpayers.
  So if the Hyde amendment had been applied as former President Obama 
had said it would, there would have been zero coverage for abortion, 
except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding.
  I stand here in a unique position; first, to oppose this sweeping 
attack on women's reproductive health in its entirety, but I also am 
compelled to discuss the unique provision that singles out the District 
of Columbia, permanently barring the District of Columbia from spending 
its own local funds--not a cent of it raised in this Congress--on 
abortion services for low-income women, thus uniquely denying the 
District of Columbia government the right that local and State 
governments exercise throughout the United States using their own local 
funds.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 goes further. It insults the District of 
Columbia.
  Just to make sure everybody understands that the bill means to 
include the District of Columbia, it tortuously defines or redefines 
the term ``Federal Government'' to include a local jurisdiction, the 
``District of Columbia government.''
  The District of Columbia government is thrown in with the Federal 
Government. We are talking about U.S. citizens, the people I represent, 
who are number one per capita in taxes raised to support the government 
of the United States of America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 
minute.
  Ms. NORTON. This bill, of course, is annual, and it is less inclined 
to become law than to be part of the annual upcoming march.
  We do not intend, Madam Speaker, to let our colleagues get away with 
not supporting democracy, including the right of local governments to 
spend their own local funds on choice. Everywhere on Earth you can 
support such a right, except for the 700,000 people who live in your 
own Nation's Capital.

                              {time}  1330

  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, under the Constitution, all funds for the 
District of Columbia are appropriated by the United States Congress, so 
we in the Congress bear a particular and additional responsibility for 
funds in the District of Columbia.
  I would also note, Madam Speaker, that there are no limitations in 
the District of Columbia on when an abortion can be performed; and 
therefore, if we were to lift this amendment, if we were not to have 
this rule in place, you could potentially have the U.S. taxpayers in a 
situation where they were being forced to fund even late-term abortions 
in the District of Columbia, which is fundamentally against the Hyde 
amendment, fundamentally against everything that we have supported and 
against the majority of the people in this Nation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming not only for being on the Committee on Rules, but also today 
for handling her first rule. Welcome to Congress and welcome to the 
Committee on Rules.
  Madam Speaker, the bill that we have before us today is an extension 
of, really, a bipartisan agreement that we have had for 30-plus years: 
that we should not have abortions that are paid for by the taxpayer. 
The bottom line is

[[Page H627]]

that this is a very difficult issue, no matter which side you might be 
on; but I believe that the right thing to do is to say that, based upon 
the morality and, really, the right thing, that the Federal Government, 
the taxpayers, should not be engaged in paying for abortions, killing 
of babies in this country.
  We believe it is morally wrong, and all we are simply doing today is 
standing up and saying we are going to extend the same privileges that 
we have had on a bipartisan basis for 30-plus years not only with the 
Hyde amendment, but placing that across all pieces, parts of 
appropriations and bills and things that we do here in Congress. This 
has absolutely nothing to do with taking away a woman's right to 
choose. It has nothing to do with dealing with the Supreme Court. It 
has everything to do with using taxpayer dollars.
  Yesterday we had a very appropriate and a very timely conversation at 
the Committee on Rules, and I think both sides handled their arguments 
and their agreements and disagreements well. It is my hope that we do 
this here today.
  But let me say this, that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) 
came up as an advocate for women, as an advocate for women who are 
engaged in the scurrilous trading of women and misconduct with women. I 
think he was seen for what he is. He is a strong advocate for life and 
for women who need to feel safe in this country. He stood up yesterday 
as an advocate for saying we should not use taxpayer money to pay for 
abortions, and that is really what this bill is.
  I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for allowing me to be here.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, 
the chairman of the Committee on Rules, says this bill has nothing to 
do with taking away a woman's right to choose. I would beg to differ. I 
think it has everything to do with taking away a woman's right to 
choose.
  But this is the rule. I was hoping that maybe he would address the 
fact that, again, three thoughtful amendments were brought before the 
Committee on Rules yesterday by Democrats. They were all germane. They 
all comply with the House rules. I was hoping he would explain why they 
were all denied, especially since the bill before us didn't go through 
regular order; it didn't go through a committee process to be brought 
to the floor. This was just kind of plopped into the Committee on 
Rules, and no amendments were made in order. That is not the way a 
deliberative body should be run. There are disagreements on this issue, 
but don't be afraid of allowing opposing viewpoints to be heard on this 
House floor. But apparently he didn't want to talk about that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Panetta).
  Mr. PANETTA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7, a 
bill which brings permanency to the Hyde amendment, a bill which 
attempts to take away low-income women's reproductive rights. 
Therefore, I submit to you that it is a bill more about divisive 
politics than decent policy.
  This past Saturday, I joined hundreds of my constituents on The 
National Mall. We demonstrated our support for reproductive rights and 
for women's health care across our Nation.
  In my district, on the central coast of California, we have an 
organization that administers those types of essential services. Mar 
Monte Planned Parenthood provides over 60,000 preventive, reproductive, 
and wellness healthcare visits each year, and for some that is the only 
health care they can get or they can afford.
  Madam Speaker, the Hyde amendment isn't going anywhere, whether we 
like it or not. So I submit to you that it is these types of bills that 
do nothing to bring Congress together and everything to drive us apart 
because it is bills like H.R. 7 that can harm the most vulnerable in my 
community and across our Nation. That is why I respectfully ask my 
colleagues to oppose H.R. 7.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule 
and the underlying bill, H.R. 7. Forty-four years ago this week, before 
I was even born, the Supreme Court recognized that the government has 
no business coming between a woman and her doctor when it comes to 
making personal medical decisions. Yet now, decades later, many in 
Washington seem determined to turn back the clock on progress on 
women's health and women's rights.
  The new administration recently instituted a rule that would limit 
the ability of women around the world to access accurate information 
about their bodies and make their own medical decisions. And now the 
House is considering a radical bill that would not only undermine a 
woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions, but also her 
ability to even choose her own health insurance plan. On top of that, 
the bill would actually raise taxes on small businesses who provide 
their employees with access to comprehensive health coverage and impose 
unfair burdens on the women of the United States military. These are 
the facts.

  I will always fight back against efforts to limit choice in women's 
health, and that is why I strongly oppose this bill. This past weekend 
we saw millions of women around the country and around the world, 
including hundreds in my own hometown of Wyckoff, New Jersey, where I 
was, rally against these backward and dangerous policies.
  I urge my colleagues to turn their focus from rolling back women's 
rights to actually focusing on getting things done for the people of 
this country--creating jobs and lowering taxes.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I ask the gentlewoman from Wyoming 
if she has additional speakers.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 23 faith-based 
organizations and communities urging Members to reject H.R. 7; a letter 
from the American Civil Liberties Union urging Members to vote ``no'' 
on H.R. 7; a letter from 44 women's health, religious, and other 
advocacy organizations strongly opposed to H.R. 7; and a letter from 
the American Association of University Women urging Members to oppose 
H.R. 7.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, January 28, 2014
       Dear Representative: As leaders of faith-based 
     organizations and communities, we urge you to reject H.R. 7, 
     a bill introduced as the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for 
     Abortion Act,'' which would harm a woman's health, economic 
     security, and religious liberty by making coverage of 
     abortion inaccessible in both public and private health 
     plans. Enclosed is a statement of shared principles that 
     compel us, together with 20 of our partner organizations from 
     the faith community, to speak out against legislation like 
     H.R. 7, which seeks to impose a narrowly-defined view of one 
     religious viewpoint on every citizen, threatening the freedom 
     of religion afforded to every individual by the U.S. 
     Constitution.
       H.R. 7 is sponsored in the House by Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-
     4). This bill would raise taxes on women and families, as 
     well as small businesses, who access or offer abortion 
     coverage as part of a comprehensive insurance plan. It would 
     do so by denying women and families a premium assistance tax 
     credit if they choose a plan in the health insurance 
     marketplace that includes abortion, a proposal soundly 
     rejected by Congress in the 2010 health reform debate. This 
     bill would also deny small employers a Small Business Tax 
     Credit for offering their workers comprehensive coverage that 
     includes abortion. Further, as amended in committee, this 
     bill would withhold abortion coverage from women enrolled in 
     a multistate, private insurance plan. Taken together, these 
     provisions would jeopardize coverage of abortion in the full 
     private insurance market, risking coverage that many women 
     and families have today; more than 80 percent of private 
     health plans currently cover abortion care.
       Also among its provisions, H.R. 7 would make permanent 
     dangerous restrictions that withhold abortion coverage from 
     women who access coverage or care through federal programs, 
     such as women enrolled in Medicaid, federal employees, Native 
     American women, and others. It would also permanently 
     withhold abortion coverage from low-income women living in 
     the District of Columbia, a federal ban that goes against the 
     wishes of DC elected officials and voters. These provisions 
     would disproportionately harm women struggling to make ends 
     meet, risking their economic security, health and well-being, 
     and ability to make personal decisions in accordance with 
     their own conscience and religious or moral beliefs.

[[Page H628]]

       Please see the enclosed statement outlining shared 
     principles of faith that compel us and our partners to speak 
     out against this harmful proposal. As communities and 
     organizations that represent diverse constituencies of faith, 
     we stand united in opposition to H.R. 7 given the danger it 
     poses to women and their families by jeopardizing affordable 
     and accessible insurance coverage of abortion.
       We urge you to reject H.R. 7 when it reaches the House 
     floor for a vote.
           Sincerely,
     Nancy Kaufman,
       CEO, National Council of Jewish Women.
     Rev. Harry Knox,
       President and CEO, Religious Coalition for Reproductive 
     Choice.
     Jon O'Brien,
       President, Catholics for Choice.


   Interfaith Statement Opposing Restrictions on Women's Health Care 
                                Options

       The undersigned religious, religiously affiliated, and 
     faith-centered organizations and communities represent 
     millions of people of faith committed to women's health and 
     reproductive choices. We are deeply troubled by legislative 
     efforts designed to restrict women's access to comprehensive 
     reproductive health care options, including abortion, 
     contraception, HIV/STD testing, cancer screenings, and other 
     essential health services.
       We recognize that issues surrounding women's reproductive 
     choices--and those regarding abortion in particular--are 
     complex. Although we come from diverse faith traditions, we 
     all agree that proposals aimed at restricting access to 
     reproductive healthcare would have devastating consequences 
     for women and their families, particularly low-income women. 
     We call on Congress and the President to reject these 
     intolerable measures.
       As people of faith, the following common principles compel 
     us to speak out together against these proposals:
       Striving for social justice and equal rights to health 
     care: All too often, legislation is proposed that would 
     create significant barriers to women's access to reproductive 
     health options and make it harder for women to make their own 
     reproductive choices based on their individual beliefs and 
     consciences. We are especially concerned about efforts to de-
     fund the Title X Family Planning program and those 
     organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, that serve as a 
     key part of our social safety net. Title X health centers and 
     clinics are on the public health front lines, serving low-
     income individuals and other vulnerable populations. These 
     centers help men and women of limited means prevent 
     unintended pregnancies; they promote prevention of, and 
     treatment for HIV and other STDs; they offer life-saving 
     cancer screenings; and they provide crucial medically-
     accurate information about sexual health. Title X providers 
     ensure that women who want to have children get the 
     information and care they need to promote a healthy 
     pregnancy. As faith-centered organizations, we are committed 
     to the most marginalized and the most vulnerable of our 
     society, especially those with limited financial means or 
     those who live in areas with limited access to services. 
     Reducing health care options for some, based on their 
     economic strata or geographic location, is profoundly unjust.
       Respecting women's moral agency: We affirm women as moral 
     agents who have the capacity, right, and responsibility to 
     make their own decisions about sexuality, reproduction, and 
     their families. Legislation that eliminates health coverage 
     for and limits the availability of reproductive health care 
     services through funding restrictions would severely limit a 
     woman's ability to make decisions about her own health care 
     and about how best to care for her family, guided by her own 
     conscience, her personal circumstances, and her own moral or 
     faith tradition.
       Valuing compassion and the obligation to protect every 
     woman's health and life: Restrictions on women's health care 
     options endanger women's lives. In particular, we oppose 
     proposals that would allow hospitals and individual health 
     workers to refuse to provide abortion services to a woman, 
     even when such care is necessary to save her life. As people 
     of faith, we strongly believe that a health worker's right to 
     refuse to provide certain services must not infringe on a 
     woman's right to access the health care she needs. Above all, 
     that refusal must not endanger her life. Health professionals 
     and the organizations that support them have an obligation to 
     ensure access to necessary services, whether directly or by 
     referral to an accessible alternative health care provider.
       Safeguarding religious liberty: We believe that one 
     person's religious viewpoint must not be imposed on others. 
     Different faiths, and even groups within a single faith 
     community, hold varying views and opinions. Time and again, 
     our nation has answered this diversity of opinions by 
     upholding the founding principle of religious freedom. 
     Reproductive freedoms are integrally bound with religious 
     freedoms--a connection recognized by the Supreme Court's 
     1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Women have a right to make 
     reproductive health choices based on their own faith 
     tradition, free from constraints imposed by those seeking 
     to legislate one religious viewpoint or another. We oppose 
     legislation that would erode Americans' constitutionally 
     protected right to religious freedom.
       As people of faith, we believe in compassion, justice, and 
     the dignity of all women. We understand that those who would 
     restrict women's access to comprehensive reproductive health 
     care are often motivated by their religious beliefs and seek 
     to impose their views on others. However, freedom of choice 
     means that every person is valued as a moral decision-maker, 
     free to make personal decisions about their reproductive 
     lives based on their own religious beliefs and consciences. 
     We cannot presume to tell others how best to inform and 
     listen to their own consciences as they make decisions about 
     whether and when to have children or how best to care for 
     their families. Today, and every day, we stand up as people 
     of faith for women's health and reproductive choices--and we 
     urge our government to do the same.
       Signed:
       Anti-Defamation League; B'nai B'rith International; 
     Catholics for Choice; Disciples Justice Action Network; 
     Episcopal Women's Caucus; Global Faith and Justice Project, 
     Horizons Foundation; Hadassah, The Women's Zionist 
     Organization of America, Inc.; Jewish Council for Public 
     Affairs; Jewish Council on Urban Affairs; Jewish Women 
     International; Metropolitan Community Churches; Muslims for 
     Progressive Values.
       National Council of Jewish Women; Reconstructionist 
     Rabbinical College and Jewish Reconstructionist Communities; 
     Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Religious 
     Institute; Soulforce; The Fellowship of Affirming Ministries; 
     Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; 
     Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association; Unitarian 
     Universalist Women's Federation; United Church of Christ, 
     Justice and Witness Ministries; Women's Alliance for 
     Theology, Ethics and Ritual.
                                  ____



                               American Civil Liberties Union,

                                 Washington, DC, January 23, 2017.

   Vote ``NO'' on H.R. 7, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and 
            Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017''

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil 
     Liberties Union (ACLU) and our nearly two million members and 
     supporters, we urge Members of the House of Representatives 
     to vote no on H.R. 7, the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for 
     Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 
     2017.'' The ACLU opposes this legislation, which would make 
     harmful, discriminatory abortion coverage restrictions 
     permanent and interfere with private health insurance 
     coverage for abortion.
       H.R. 7 would make permanent the Hyde Amendment and its 
     progeny, discriminatory abortion coverage restrictions that 
     single out and exclude abortion from a host of programs that 
     fulfill the government's obligation to provide health care. 
     These restrictions disproportionately impact those who 
     already face significant barriers to care--low-income 
     families, women of color, immigrants, young people, LGBTQ 
     people, and those in rural areas. They discriminate against 
     these women, who rely on the government for health care, by 
     severely restricting their access to a health care service 
     that is readily available to women of means and women with 
     private insurance.
       A woman in need of abortion care who does not have 
     independent financial resources must scramble to raise the 
     necessary funds, delay receiving care, and is often left with 
     no choice but to carry to term in circumstances where she is 
     physically, emotionally, or financially unprepared to care 
     for a child. In fact, restricting Medicaid coverage of 
     abortion forces one in four poor women seeking abortion to 
     carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. When a woman seeking an 
     abortion is denied one, she is three times more likely to 
     fall into poverty than a woman who can obtain the care she 
     needs. If a woman chooses to carry to term, Medicaid (and 
     other federal insurance programs) offers her assistance for 
     the necessary medical care. But if she needs to end her 
     pregnancy, the same programs will deny her coverage for her 
     abortion. The government should not interfere with a woman's 
     personal medical decisions by selectively withholding 
     benefits in this way.
       H.R. 7 also takes particular aim at low-income women in the 
     District of Columbia. Although the use of federal funds is 
     currently restricted from covering most abortions, states are 
     free to use their own funds to include abortion coverage in 
     their medical assistance programs. The only exception is the 
     District of Columbia. H.R. 7 would make permanent a provision 
     that forbids the District from using its own locally raised 
     non-federal dollars to provide coverage for abortion for its 
     low-income residents. The D.C. abortion ban disenfranchises 
     the District's residents, and allows non-resident Members of 
     Congress who are not accountable to the people of the 
     District to impose their own ideology upon the District's 
     residents with impunity.
       H.R 7 would also impact women's ability to purchase private 
     insurance that includes abortion coverage. It would revive 
     the so-called Stupak Amendment, rejected by the 111th 
     Congress, which would bar anyone receiving a federal premium 
     assistance credit from buying a private insurance policy that 
     includes abortion coverage on the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) 
     insurance exchanges. This is not only an attempt to 
     effectively ban abortion coverage in the exchanges by 
     encouraging insurers to exclude it, but it would have a 
     ripple effect on plans outside the exchanges that jeopardizes 
     abortion coverage for millions of women. Further, the 
     inaccurate disclosure requirements in H.R. 7

[[Page H629]]

     would push insurance companies to drop abortion coverage and 
     deter women from purchasing plans that include such coverage 
     by misleading them about the cost of purchasing these plans. 
     These provisions are direct attacks on a woman's ability to 
     make personal medical decisions with complete and accurate 
     information.
       Additionally, H.R. 7 rewrites tax law to penalize a single, 
     legal, medical procedure: abortion. It would deny small 
     businesses tax credits if the insurance they provide to their 
     employees includes abortion coverage, effectively coercing 
     employers to offer plans that exclude abortion. The bill 
     would also deny millions of women and families premium tax 
     credits if they purchase a health insurance plan that covers 
     abortion, forcing them to forgo comprehensive health 
     insurance plans in order to get the premium assistance they 
     need. This manipulation of the tax code is simply government 
     interference in taxpayers' private medical decisions and 
     should be rejected.
       Abortion is basic, constitutionally-protected health care 
     for women. Yet H.R. 7 attacks women's fundamental right and 
     access to abortion. It first targets women--particularly poor 
     women and women of color who rely on the government for their 
     health care--and seeks to permanently deny them coverage for 
     a benefit to which they are entitled. Then, under the guise 
     of ``safeguarding'' taxpayer dollars, H.R. 7 advances an 
     aggressive campaign to destabilize the insurance market for 
     abortion coverage. Congress should be eliminating barriers to 
     women's ability to exercise their constitutionally protected 
     right to safe, legal abortion. Instead, H.R. 7 would 
     interfere with women's personal medical decisions by putting 
     even more bathers in the way.
       For these reasons, the ACLU opposes H.R. 7 and urges 
     members of the House of Representatives to vote no.
           Sincerely,
     Faiz Shakir,
       Director, Washington Legislative Office.
     Georgeanne M. Usova,
       Legislative Counsel.
                                  ____

       Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations strongly 
     urge you to oppose the deceptive ``No Taxpayer Funding for 
     Abortion Act'' (H.R. 7), a bill designed to fundamentally 
     alter the health insurance market--from a market where 
     abortion coverage is the industry standard to one where 
     abortion coverage is eliminated. H.R. 7 does this by changing 
     the laws that govern both private and public insurance and by 
     twisting the tax code into a tool to take away abortion 
     coverage from women who have it. Ultimately, this bill is 
     designed to deny women the decision whether or not to have an 
     abortion by taking away their insurance coverage.
       H.R. 7 twists the tax code into a tool to take away health 
     insurance coverage that women have today. For example, the 
     bill would deny millions of women and families premium tax 
     credits if they purchase a health insurance plan that covers 
     abortion. The bill would force these women--particularly low 
     and moderate income women--to forego a health insurance plan 
     that includes abortion in order to get the premium assistance 
     they need. H.R. 7 would also raise taxes on small businesses 
     by denying the Small Business Health Tax Credit to businesses 
     that offer health insurance that covers abortion. This credit 
     was created to encourage small businesses to offer health 
     insurance to their employees by making it more affordable. 
     This bill would penalize employers for choosing comprehensive 
     coverage for their employees and their families.
       H.R. 7 could cause the entire insurance market to drop 
     abortion coverage. The impact of H.R. 7's changes could be 
     that women across the country lose comprehensive health 
     insurance that includes abortion coverage. The elimination of 
     abortion coverage in the Marketplaces is expected to set the 
     industry standard, meaning that all plans, inside and outside 
     the Marketplace, could drop such coverage.
       H.R. 7 introduces a new ban on private insurance by forcing 
     all multi-state insurance plans to drop abortion coverage. 
     Currently, the law requires that at least one multi-state 
     health insurance plan in a Marketplace must not provide 
     abortion coverage (except for narrow exceptions). H.R. 7 
     would replace this requirement with a dramatic restriction 
     banning abortion coverage in all multi-state health insurance 
     plans.
       The Rules Committee Print of H.R. 7 includes new provisions 
     that would impose inaccurate and misleading disclosure 
     requirements regarding abortion coverage in plans offered in 
     the Marketplace. This bill overrides existing provisions of 
     the Affordable Care Act that provide consumers with 
     information about their health plans, and instead adds new 
     requirements intended to push insurance companies to drop 
     abortion coverage and deter women from purchasing plans that 
     include such coverage. Moreover, H.R. 7 wrongly asserts that 
     there is a ``surcharge'' in plans that cover abortion, and 
     would require women to be misled with this falsehood. These 
     new provisions are not about disclosure, but about 
     eliminating abortion coverage, in line with the rest of the 
     bill's dangerous provisions.
       H.R. 7 would permanently ban federal health insurance 
     programs such as Medicaid from including abortion coverage. 
     H.R. 7 would codify harmful legislative riders that deny 
     abortion coverage to women who receive health insurance 
     through the federal government. Moreover, H.R. 7 makes 
     permanent a rider that denies the District of Columbia the 
     ability to decide whether to use its own local finds to 
     provide abortion coverage. These bans disproportionately 
     affect women of color and low-income women, denying these 
     women the ability to make their own important health care 
     decisions.
       H.R. 7 would endanger women's health by eliminating 
     coverage of abortion even in circumstances where a woman 
     needs an abortion to prevent severe, permanent damage to her 
     health. Because H.R. 7 only makes exceptions in the cases 
     where the woman's life is endangered, or where she is the 
     survivor of rape or incest, it would leave women whose health 
     is seriously threatened by their pregnancies without access 
     to the care their doctors recommend to protect their health. 
     The impact can be especially harmful to women underserved by 
     the health care system and women with serious health 
     problems.
       In summary, H.R. 7 would deny millions of women the ability 
     to make their own decision about whether to have an abortion. 
     H.R. 7 is a dangerous bill that jeopardizes women's health by 
     directly banning abortion coverage, by raising taxes on 
     families and small businesses that purchase comprehensive 
     insurance coverage, and by imposing ``disclosure'' 
     requirements that encourage the elimination of abortion 
     coverage. The intent and impact of H.R. 7 is to forever 
     eliminate coverage of abortion in all insurance markets. We 
     strongly urge you to reject this bill.
           Sincerely,
       Advocates for Youth; American Association of University 
     Women (AAUW); American Civil Liberties Union, American Nurses 
     Association, American Public Health Association; American 
     Society for Reproductive Medicine; Association of 
     Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP); Asian & Pacific 
     Islander American Health Forum; Black Women's Health 
     Imperative; Catholics for Choice.
       Center for Reproductive Rights; Choice USA; Feminist 
     Majority; Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of 
     America, Inc.; Jewish Women International; Joint Action 
     Committee for Political Affairs; Medical Students for Choice; 
     Methodist Federation for Social Action; NARAL Pro-Choice 
     America; National Abortion Federation.
       National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum; National 
     Center for Lesbian Rights; National Council of Jewish Women; 
     National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association; 
     National Health Law Program; National Latina Institute for 
     Reproductive Health; National Organization for Women; 
     National Partnership for Women & Families; National Women's 
     Health Network; National Women's Law Center; People For the 
     American Way.
       Physicians for Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood 
     Federation of America; Population Connection Action Fund; 
     Population Institute; Raising Women's Voices for the Health 
     Care We Need; Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; 
     Religious Institute; Reproductive Health Technologies 
     Project; Sexuality Information and Education Council of the 
     United States (SIECUS); Unitarian Universalist Association; 
     Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation; United Church of 
     Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; WV Citizen Action 
     Group.
                                  ____



                             AAUW Empowering Women Since 1881,

                                 Washington, DC, January 24, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 170,000 
     bipartisan members and supporters of the American Association 
     of University Women (AAUW), I urge you to oppose H.R. 7, a 
     dangerous limitation on abortion that puts women's health and 
     rights at risk. H.R. 7 would withhold abortion coverage from 
     virtually all women in the U.S. and potentially push insurers 
     into ceasing coverage of abortion care. This bill is a part 
     of a political strategy that seeks to interfere with women's 
     personal decision-making around their reproductive health 
     care.
       AAUW supports the right of every woman to access safe, 
     accessible, affordable, and comprehensive family planning and 
     reproductive health services. We believe that all women 
     should be able to make their own decisions with advice and 
     support from those they trust the most. We know that women 
     look to doctors, family members, and other trusted 
     individuals, not politicians, to make important medical 
     decisions about their health.
       H.R. 7 would make abortion restrictions that are often 
     built into annual appropriations bills permanent. Such an 
     action would withhold abortion coverage from almost all 
     women--those who rely on Medicaid, federal insurance plans 
     and health programs, as well as those who are Peace Corps 
     Volunteers, Native American women, Washington, D.C. 
     residents, and many others. In addition, by creating 
     burdensome regulations for insurers to cover abortion 
     services, many more women would lose access to the care they 
     need. When policymakers deny women insurance coverage for 
     abortion, women are forced to either carry the pregnancy to 
     term or pay for care out of their own pockets. Consequently, 
     cutting off access to or placing strict limitations on 
     abortion can have profoundly harmful effects on public 
     health, particularly for those who already face significant 
     barriers to receiving care, such as low-income women, 
     immigrant women, LGBTQ people, and women of color.
       Again, I urge you to oppose H.R. 7, a dangerous limitation 
     on abortion that puts

[[Page H630]]

     women's health and rights at risk. Votes associated with this 
     legislation may be scored in the AAUW Action Fund 
     Congressional Voting Record for the 115th Congress. Please do 
     not hesitate to contact me at 202/785-7720, or Anne 
     Hedgepeth, Senior Government Relations Manager, if you have 
     any questions.
           Sincerely,

                                                Lisa M. Maatz,

                                      Vice President of Government
                                           Relations and Advocacy.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me begin my closing by reminding 
people that we are about to vote on the rule. The rule defines how we 
are going to consider this legislation. This is a closed rule. This is 
a Putin rule. This is a rule that allows no opposing viewpoints to be 
brought before this Chamber to be debated and voted on. It is 
completely closed. On top of that, it didn't go through regular order.
  Now, I know my colleagues will say, well, it went through regular 
order in the previous Congress. But there are 55 new Members of the 
House in this Congress, and I think they have a right to expect regular 
order from the leadership of this House when legislation is brought to 
the floor. The rule should be rejected because it is closed.
  I would urge my colleagues, even those who may be sympathetic to the 
underlying legislation to, at some point, stand up to your leadership 
and say, ``Enough of this closed process.'' Open this place up a little 
bit. This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the 
world, and yet we do everything but deliberate. At some point, I hope 
some of my Republican colleagues will be brave enough to stand with us 
who are calling for a more open process.
  I also urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
  I also include in the Record an article from Politico entitled, 
``Study: Abortion Rate Falls to Record Low.''

                     [From Politico, Jan. 17, 2017]

                Study: Abortion Rate Falls to Record Low

                           (By Brianna Ehley)

       The U.S. abortion rate dipped to its lowest level on record 
     in 2014, according to a new study by the Guttmacher 
     Institute.
       The abortion rate dropped 14 percent between 2011 and 2014 
     to 14.6 abortions per 1,000 women, researchers said. During 
     the same time period, the number of abortions dropped 12 
     percent to 926,200 in 2014.
       Researchers suggested two main reasons for the decline: a 
     combination of greater access to contraception and less 
     access to abortion services in states that have enacted new 
     restrictions.
       The number of clinics providing abortions dipped 6 percent 
     between 2011 and 2014, with the largest declines in access in 
     the Midwest and the South.
       ``Abortion restrictions and clinic closures mean that 
     patients may need to travel greater distances to access 
     services,'' Rachel Jones, the study's lead author, said in a 
     statement. ``Some of the abortion rate decline is likely 
     attributable to women who were prevented from accessing 
     needed services.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, part of the reason for that is because 
women are having more access to good health care. Part of the reason 
why that number is getting lower is because of organizations like 
Planned Parenthood, which provide clinics and counseling and 
contraception to young women so that we can actually avoid more people 
being in the situation where they have to confront the issue of 
abortion. And yet my colleagues' next salvo is going to be going after 
Planned Parenthood. The abortion rate in this country is going down.
  The underlying bill is not about making sure that taxpayer money 
doesn't go to fund abortion. That is what the Hyde amendment does.
  The Affordable Care Act, by the way, makes it clear that no portion 
of the premium tax credits may be used to pay for the portion of 
comprehensive health coverage that is purchased in the marketplace that 
relates to abortion services. That is not what this is about.
  This is basically the first attempt to really go after the basic 
constitutional right for a woman to be able to choose when it comes to 
abortion services. That is what this is about. The leadership of this 
House--indeed, the President of the United States--has made it clear 
they want to repeal Roe v. Wade. They want to put Justices on the 
Supreme Court who will repeal that decision. They want to pass 
legislation that will do everything to be able to deny women that basic 
right. That is what is going on here.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, I am asking people to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so that we can actually debate and vote on this issue 
of requiring Presidential candidates and Presidents to release their 
tax returns. I say to my colleagues in all sincerity, this President's 
refusal to release his tax returns, all these conflicts of interest 
that he has, this is a White House on a collision course with 
corruption. Donald Trump said he wanted to come to Washington to drain 
the swamp, but by not releasing his tax returns, by allowing all these 
conflicts of interest to remain, he is bringing the swamp to the White 
House. Enough.
  Let us vote for transparency here. Let us vote in a way that the 
majority of Americans think we ought to do, and that is to require this 
President to come clean, to show us what his tax returns are, to show 
us what he is hiding, to show us where his investments are, to show us 
if there are any dealings with Russia or Putin or whatever.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we 
can have that opportunity to be able to debate that issue, because if 
you don't vote ``no,'' I can guarantee you that the Committee on Rules 
will never make it in order. The Committee on Rules never makes 
anything in order that the leadership of this House doesn't put its 
rubber stamp on. I think that that is unfortunate. As I said before, 
the Committee on Rules is becoming a place where democracy goes to die. 
It is about time that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle stand up 
and say, ``Enough. Let's open this place up.''
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am really heartened today, Madam Speaker, to hear so much concern 
from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about making sure 
that patients and individuals have the right to make decisions about 
their own health care. I would expect, then, to see support from the 
other side of the aisle when we are in a position where we are putting 
in place our replacement for ObamaCare. That is one of the main reasons 
we are repealing ObamaCare, getting the government out of the business 
of telling people what they can and can't have with respect to their 
own health care. That is not the issue that we are debating here today, 
however, Madam Speaker.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his tireless work 
on this issue and for introducing this bipartisan bill. A majority of 
Americans across the country share the view that we must continue to 
work to protect the lives of mothers and their unborn children. As you 
have already heard, Madam Speaker, the Hyde amendment is responsible 
for saving the lives of at least 2 million babies, the most vulnerable 
among us.
  Codifying a permanent restriction on the use of taxpayer funding for 
abortions is long overdue. I urge adoption of both the rule and H.R. 7 
so we can continue to protect and save lives.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise again in strong opposition to 
the rule for H.R. 7, the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion 
Act,'' and the underlying bill.
  I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women 
at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of 
privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the 
American people.
  A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating 
the Rights of Women Act of 2017''!
  Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across 
the aisle should be working with Democrats to build upon the ``Middle-
Class Economics'' championed by the Obama Administration that have 
succeeded in ending the economic meltdown it inherited in 2009 and 
revived the economy to the point where today we have the highest rate 
of growth and lowest rate of unemployment since the boom years of the 
Clinton Administration.
  We could and should instead be voting to raise the minimum wage to 
$15.00 per hour so that people who work hard and play by the rules do 
not have raise their families in poverty.
  A far better use of our time would be to provide help to unemployed 
job-hunters by making access to community college affordable to every 
person looking to make a new start in life.

[[Page H631]]

  Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for 
the umpteenth time, we should bring to the floor for a first vote 
comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing 
the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court's 
decision in Shelby County v. Holder.
  Madam Speaker, the one thing we should not be doing is debating 
irresponsible ``messaging bills'' that abridge the rights of women and 
have absolutely no chance of overriding a presidential veto.
  The version of H.R. 7 before us now is as bad today as it was when 
the House Republican leadership insisted on bringing it to a vote a 
year ago. The other draconian provisions of that terrible bill are 
retained in H.R. 7, which would:
  1. Prohibit federal funds from being used for any health benefits 
coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Thus making permanent 
existing federal policies.)
  2. Prohibit the inclusion of abortion in any health care service 
furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or 
by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government 
or the District.
  3. Apply such prohibitions to District of Columbia funds.
  4. Prohibit individuals from receiving a refundable federal tax 
credit, or any cost-sharing reductions, for purchasing a qualified 
health plan that includes coverage for abortions.
  5. Prohibit small employers from receiving the small-employer health 
insurance credit provided by the health care law if the health plans or 
benefits that are purchased provide abortion coverage.
  If H.R. 7 were enacted, millions of families and small businesses 
with private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage would 
be faced with tax increases, making the cost of health care insurance 
even more expensive.
  Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are able to offer abortion 
coverage and receive federal offsets for premiums as long as enrollees 
pay for the abortion coverage from separate, private funds.
  If enacted, H.R. 7 would deny federal subsidies or credits to private 
health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage even if that 
coverage is paid for from private funds.
  This would inevitably lead to private health insurance companies 
dropping abortion coverage leaving millions of women without access to 
affordable, comprehensive health care.
  Currently, 87% of private insurance health care plans offered through 
employers cover abortion.
  If H.R. 7 were to become law, consumer Options for private health 
insurance plans would be unnecessarily restricted and the tax burden on 
these policy holders would increase significantly.
  H.R. 7 would also deny tax credits to small businesses that offer 
their employees insurance plans that cover abortion, which would have a 
significant impact on millions of families across the nation who would 
no longer be able to take advantage of existing tax credits and 
deductions for the cost of their health care.
  For example, small businesses that offer health plans that cover 
abortions would no longer be eligible for the Small Business Health Tax 
Credit--potentially worth 35%-50% of the cost of their premiums--
threatening 4 million small businesses.
  Self-employed Americans who are able to deduct the cost of their 
comprehensive health insurance from their taxable income will also be 
denied similar tax credits and face higher taxes.
  H.R. 7 would also undermine the District of Columbia's home rule by 
restricting its use of funds for abortion care to low-income women.
  The Hyde Amendment stipulates that no taxpayer dollars are to be used 
for abortion care, and has narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and 
health complications that arise from pregnancy which put the mother's 
life in danger.
  H.R. 7 would restrict women's access to reproductive health care even 
further by narrowing the already stringent requirements set forth in 
the Hyde Amendment.
  When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the President 
issued an Executive Order to ``ensure that Federal funds are not used 
for abortion services.''
  This version of H.R. 7 goes far beyond the safeguards established 
under the Affordable Care Act, and sets a dangerous precedent for the 
future of women's reproductive health in this country because it 
includes two new provisions that were added at the nth hour but have 
never received a hearing or a mark-up.
  These new provisions would (1) ban abortion coverage in multi-state 
health plans available under the ACA; and (2) mandate that health plans 
mislead consumers about abortion coverage by requiring all plans in the 
health-insurance exchanges that include abortion coverage to display 
that fact prominently in all advertising, marketing materials, or 
information from the insurer but interestingly, does not require the 
same disclosure from plans that do not cover abortion.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 would also force health plans to mislead 
consumers about the law's treatment of abortion.
  As a concession to anti-choice lawmakers, the ACA requires insurance 
plans participating in the new health system to segregate monies used 
for abortion services from all other funds.
  In order to aid in identifying these funds and simplify the process 
of segregating general premium dollars from those used to cover 
abortion services, the ACA requires that health plans estimate the cost 
of abortion coverage at no less than $1 per enrollee per month.
  H.R. 7 would require plans covering abortion to misrepresent this 
practice as an ``abortion surcharge,'' which is to be disclosed and 
identified as a portion of the consumer's premium.
  By describing abortion coverage in this way, H.R.7 makes it look as 7 
though it is an added, extra cost, available only at an additional fee, 
when in fact it is not.
  Taken together, the provisions in H.R. 7 have the effect, and 
possibly the intent, of arbitrarily infringing women's reproductive 
freedoms and pose a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of 
American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in 
Roe V. Wade.
  Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is 
that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of 
circumstances.
  Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water 
broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a 
premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved 
viability.
  This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a 
shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move 
limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to 
the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 
22-week point.
  There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would 
be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be 
able to eat on its own.
  H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered 
months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from 
several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of 
Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and 
Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an 
abortion.
  Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right 
to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family.
  These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in 
consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.
  H.R. 7 lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life 
of the mother.
  H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, 
as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back 
to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973.
  In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not prohibit a 
woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to 
protect her health prior to viability.
  While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus 
of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not 
occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.
  Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a 
state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of 
gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the 
determinant'' of viability. Coloyal v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379,388-89 
(1979).
  The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right 
of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even 
later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety.
  This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.
  The bill before us threatens this hard won right for women and must 
be defeated.
  I urge all members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

           An Amendment to H. Res. 55 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     305) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require 
     the disclosure of certain tax returns by Presidents and 
     certain candidates for the office of the President, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and 
     controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority 
     members of the Committees on

[[Page H632]]

     Ways and Means and Oversight and Government Reform. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 305.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition ``
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 187, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 62]

                               YEAS--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--187

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

[[Page H633]]


  


                             NOT VOTING--12

     Blumenauer
     Coffman
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Joyce (OH)
     Mulvaney
     Payne
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Velazquez
     Zinke

                              {time}  1404

  Mr. VEASEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236, 
noes 183, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 63]

                               AYES--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Blumenauer
     Coffman
     Huffman
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Mulvaney
     Payne
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush
     Schrader
     Slaughter
     Veasey
     Zinke


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1411

  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.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. COFFMAN. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on roll call No. 62, and ``Yea'' on 
roll call No. 63.

                          ____________________