House Session 2011 - 05 - 04 - 13 - 00 - 58 - 14 - 01 - 46

DIFFERENT VIEWS ON THIS QUESTION. TIME. THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. I YIELD TWO MINUTES AND 15 SECONDS TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM VIRGINIA, I'M SORRY, FROM NORTH CAROLINA. THE GENTLELADY FROM NORTH CAROLINA IS RECOGNIZED FOR 2 TWO MINUTES AND 15 SECONDS. THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I THANK MY COLLEAGUE FROM FLORIDA FOR YIELDING ME TIME TO SPEAK ON THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING DEFENSELESS UNBORN CHILDREN AND ENSURING TAXPAYER MONEY IS NOT USED TO PAY FOR ELECTIVE ABORTIONS. I DO WANT TO EXPLAIN TO MY GLIB FRIEND FROM VERMONT, WHO IS SO GOOD ON THE FLOOR, THAT THE HYDE AMENDMENT ITSELF COVERS PLANS AS WELL AS DIRECT FUNDING. SO I THINK THE PEOPLE NEED TO CORRECTION TO THE COMMENTS THAT HE MADE. ACCORDING TO A CNN POLL LAST MONTH, MADAM SPEAKER, MORE THAN 60% OF AMERICANS OPPOSE TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION. TODAY, THIS HOUSE HAS THE HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY TO END THE PATCHWORK OF POLICIES THAT ARE INTENDED TO PROHIBIT TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION AND BY PASSING A GOVERNMENT-WIDE PROHIBITION ON FUNDING ELECTIVE ABORTIONS. H.R. 3, THE NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION ACT, CODIFY MISS LONG-STANDING PRO-LIFE PROTECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED UNDER REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS. IN FACT, MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI HAS VOTED 14 TIMES TO PROHIBIT TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR COLUMBIA. PRESIDENT OBAMA VOTED AGAINST TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TWICE. WHEN HE WAS IN THE SENATE. AND SINCE BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT, HE SIGNED LAW THAT PROHIBITS THIS FUNDING. AS YOU CAN SEE, MADAM SPEAKER, OPPOSITION TO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION IS BIPARTISAN, BICAMERAL AND SUPPORTED BY THE THERE'S NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROTECTING VOICELESS, UNBORN CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES FROM THE TRAVESTY OF ABORTION. THEREFORE, I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE FOR LIFE BY VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS RULE AND THE UNDERLYING BILL AND SAY THAT MY COLLEAGUE FROM VERMONT SAID WE CAN DIFFER ON OPINIONS, BUT THIS IS THE RIGHT POSITION TO TAKE. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. THE GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK. YIELD TWO MINUTES TO THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM HAWAII, MS. HIRONO. THE GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES. I THANK THE I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE AND IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 3, A BILL THAT THREATENS WOMEN'S HEALTH AND ACCESS TO CARE. OVER THE PAST TWO WEEKS, AS I TRAVELED IN MY DISTRICT, THE TOP OF THE ISSUES WERE THE ECONOMY AND JOBS. NOW THAT WE'RE BACK IN D.C., INSTEAD OF WORKING ON BILLS TO MOVE OUR ECONOMY FORWARD, WE'RE ASKED TO DEBATE DIVISIVE SOCIAL POLICY. CLEARLY THE PRIORITIES OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DO NOT MATCH THOSE OF THE PEOPLE OF HAWAII. THERE ARE THOSE WHO WILL SAY H.R. 3 MAINTAINS THE STATUS QUO. IT TAKES US BACK TO THE DAYS WHEN A WOMAN HAD TO PROVE SHE WAS A VICTIM OF *** AND VIOLATE WOMEN'S MEDICAL PRIVACY RIGHTS. DO YOU THINK SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS HAVE THE TIME TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEIR INSURANCE COVERS ABORTIONS? DO YOU WANT TO TAKE US BACK TO THE DAYS WHEN A WOMAN HAD TO PROVE SHE RESISTED HER ***? I WAS A MEMBER OF A STATE LEGISLATURE IN THE 19809S IN HAWAII WHEN I WORKED WITH WOMEN AS VICTIM ADVOCACY GROUPS TO CHANGE OUR *** ASSAULT LAWS SO THE PROSECUTION FOCUSED ON THE PERPETRATOR OF THE ***, RATHER THAN ON THE ACTIONS OF THE VICTIM. OUR COURT SYSTEM IN THOSE DAYS, BECAUSE OF OUR LAW, VICTIMIZED THE VICTIMS OF ***. HAWAII CHANGED ITS LAWS. THIS BILL TAKES US BACK TO THOSE DAYS WHEN A WOMAN HAD TO SHOW THAT SHE RESISTED. HAWAII WAS ALSO THE FIRST STATE IN THE NATION TO DECRIMINALIZE ABORTION AND GIVE A WOMAN THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. THE PERSON WHO CARRIED THIS BILL IN THE LEGISLATURE WAS A DEVOUT CATHOLIC. THE GOVERNOR, JACK BURNS A DEVOUT CATHOLIC, HE WENT TO MASS EVERY SINGLE DAY, HE ALLOWED THIS BILL TO BECOME LAW IN HAWAII IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT HE HAD A LOT OF PRESSURE AS A CATHOLIC TO VETO THIS BILL HE COULD HAVE DONE SO. HE RESPECTED THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO CHOOSE. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO JOIN ME IN VOTING AGAINST THIS RULE AND THIS BILL. THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. I YIELD ONE MINUTE TO MY COLLEAGUE, MR. HUIZENGA. THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE. OLD ARGUMENTS OF WASHINGTON VERSUS THE NEW REALITIES OF AMERICA. WE HAVE TWO DISTINCT ISSUES HERE. THOSE TWO ISSUES ARE ONE, LIFE, TWO, THE TAXPAYER. I THINK THOSE THINGS ARE BECOME VERY -- ARE BECOMING VERY STARK. HERE WE ARE, A SITUATION WHERE A PRESIDENT HAS SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO DO MANY OF THE EXACT SAME THINGS, TO NOT ALLOW FEDERAL FUNDED ABORTIONS TO BE HAPPENING. JET SOMEHOW, IT'S WE SHOULDN'T BE PUTTING THIS INTO LAW. IT SEEMS COMMON SENSE WE'D DO THAT. WE NEED TO DO THIS TO PROTECT YOU LOOK AT POLLING, YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON, WE CANNOT ALLOW FEDERAL FUNDS TO BE USED AND OUR TAXPAYERS TO BE USED FOR THIS PROCEDURE. NOW LET'S MOVE ON TO LIFE. WE KNOW THE SANCTITY OF LIFE THAT IS THERE FROM THAT VERY CONCEPTION UNTIL NATURAL DEATH. WE NEED TO PROTECT THAT. WE NEED TO PROTECT THAT ATMOSPHERE AS A GOVERNMENT. IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO PROMOTE THAT. IT IS OUR JOB TO PROMOTE -- IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO PROMOTE THAT HORRENDOUS OPERATION, IT'S OUR JOB TO PROMOTE THOSE CHILDREN. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. THE GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK. I'M PLEASED TO RECOGNIZE THE GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA, MS. SPEIER, FOR TWO MINUTES. THE GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED. MS. SPEIER FEATHER I RISE IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO THIS -- I RISE IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE LOOKING FOR WORK AND WE'RE BUSY TURNING THE TAX LAW INTO A MORAL CLUB. FORGET THAT THE REPUBLICANS WANT LIMITED GOVERNMENT WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTING YOU IN THE WORKPLACE BUT BIG GOTH WHEN IT COMES TO REGULATING YOUR BEDROOM. THIS ISN'T ABOUT ANYONE'S POSITION ON ABORTION. ROE VS. WADE WAS DECIDED 38 YEARS AGO, IT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND. THIS IS ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD USE THE TAX LAW AS A MORAL CLUB TO IMPOSE THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF A FEW MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ON THE ENTIRE NATION. WHAT'S NEXT? SOME FIND IT IMMORAL TO DRINK ALCOHOL OR GAMBLE. SHOULD WE OUTLAW BUSINESS DEDUCTIONS FOR MEALS THAT INCLUDE WINE? HOW ABOUT BUSINESS CONVENTIONS IN LAS VEGAS? MANY PEOPLE ARE MORALLY OPPOSED TO PROFANITY. MAYBE WE SHOULD MAKE IT AGAINST THE LAW TO SWEAR WHEN FILLING OUT YOUR TAXES. HOW ABOUT A MORE SERIOUS ISSUE. MANY OF MY CONSTITUENTS THINK THE WAR IN IRAQ IS IMMORAL. SAME FOR TAX BREAKS FOR BIG OIL OR TACK BREAKS THAT REWARD CORPORATIONS IF SHIPPING JOBS OVERSEAS. SINGLING OUT ABORTION IS WRONG SERIOUS CHALLENGES OUR NATION FACES. IF REPUBLICANS WANT TO OVERTURN ROE V. WADE, THEY SHOULD DRAFT A BILL AND GIVE IT THEIR BEST SHOT. BUT DON'T USE THE TAX CODE AS A BLUDGEON, YOU DON'T HAVE THE VOTES. I YIELD BACK. THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. I YIELD ONE MINUTE TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM NEW JERSEY -- HIGHWAY. I'M SORRY. -- HIGHWAY. -- OHIO, I'M SORRY. MR. SHADEGG. THE MINUTE. I RISE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF H.R. 3, THE NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION ACT. A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY OPPOSE THE GOVERNMENT USING THEIR TAX DOLLARS TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS. IT'S TIME WE PERMANENTLY EXTEND THE HYDE AMENDMENT WHICH BANS THIS IRRESPONSIBLE PRACTICE. PARTICULARLY IN OUR CURRENT BUDGET SITUATION, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE SUBSIDIZING AABORTIONS. ADDITIONALLY THIS BILL PERMANENTLY EXTENDS IMPORTANT LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR DOCTORS AN OTHER HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS WHO REFUSE TO PERFORM ABORTIONS TO WHICH THEY ARE MORALLY OPPOSED. EVERY DOCTOR AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDER DESERVES THE RIGHT TO ACT ACCORDING TO HIS OR HER OWN CONSCIENCE. THIS IMPORTANT LEGISLATION WILL ENSURE THAT -- AND THIS WILL ENSURE THAT THAT HAPPENS. THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS DON'T WANT THEIR TAX DOLLARS USED TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS. LET'S DO THE FISCALLY AND MORALLY RESPONSIBLE THING TO VOTE TO PASS H.R. 3. THE GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK. I YIELD TWO MINUTES TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY, MR. ANDREWS. THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES. I ASK UNANIMOUS REMARKS. THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. IF PROPOSALS WERE BROUGHT TO THE HOUSE FLOOR TISSUE IF PROPOSALS WERE BROUGHT TO THE HOUSE THERE ARE THAT SAID THE FOLLOWING, IF AN AMERICAN MAKES A CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION AND TAKES A DEDUCTION ON HIS INCOME TAX RETURN, WE'LL DISALLOW THAT IF THE GROUP RECEIVING THE DONATION SUPPORTS GUN OWNERSHIP, GUN RIGHTS OR GUN EDUCATION, I SUSPECT IT WOULD NOT GET ONE VOTE ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE AISLE AN SHOULDN'T GET ANY VOTES ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE OF THE AISLE BECAUSE IT'S WRONG AN PROBABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE UNDERLYING BILL DOES HERE. IT SAYS THAT AN AMERICAN EXERCISING HIS OR HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, IN THIS CASE HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, WITH THEIR OWN MONEY, WILL SUFFER A NEGATIVE TAX CONSEQUENCE BECAUSE THE MAJORITY WANTS THEM TO. UNDERSTAND THIS. IF AN AMERICAN WOMAN WITH HER OWN MONEY CHOOSES TO EXERCISE HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, SHE WILL BE SUFFERING AN INCREASE IN TAXES AS A RESULT OF MAKING THIS DECISION. I SCARCELY SAY THAT ANYONE ON THE MAJORITY SIDE WOULD AGREE THAT IF WE PICKED ONE OF THEIR FAVORITE SOCIAL ISSUES AND SAID WE'RE GOING TO RAISE TAXES ON PEOPLE WHO ENGAGE IN THAT SOCIAL ISSUE, MUCH LESS IN A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, THAT THEY WOULD AGREE WITH THIS. THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT ABORTION. THIS IS A DEBATE ABOUT PRIVACY. IT'S A A DEBATE ABOUT INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND THE RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO DO WHAT THEY CHOOSE WITH THEIR OWN MONEY, PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY'RE ENFORCING ONE OF THEIR OWN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. I WOULD ALSO SAY FOR THE RECORD, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THIS BILL IS CARRIED OUT, A PERSON WHO IS A MINOR WHO IS A VICTIM OF STATUTORY *** MAY NOT BE ABLE TO AVAIL HERSELF OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WITH HER FAMILY'S OWN MONEY. LET'S HAVE -- I WOULD ASK FOR 30 MORE SECONDS. GENTLEMAN 30 SECONDS. I KNOW THAT PEOPLE FEEL PASSIONATELY ABOUT THE RIGHT TO LIFE AN THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE AND THIS IS THE FORM IN WHICH THAT DEBATE OUGHT TO TAKE PLACE BUT USING THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE TO EITHER PUNISH OR REWARD CERTAIN SOCIAL CONDUCT, PARTICULARLY CONDUCT THAT IS IN THE EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, IS WRONG. AND IF ANYONE IN THE MINORITY SIDE WOULD LIKE TO TELL ME THEY WOULD VOTE FOR THAT N.R.A. PROVISION, I WELCOME THAT. BECAUSE IT'S AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICANS. SO IS THIS. THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. I YIELD THREE MINUTES TO MY COLLEAGUE, DR. ROE FROM TENNESSEE. THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES. I THANK THE GENTLEMAN, I THANK THE SPEAKER. I RISE IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 3, THE NO TAXPAYER FUNDING ABORTION ACT. I'M A PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF THIS LEGISLATION AND AS AN ON CITY TRIGS AND GYNECOLOGIST, I'VE DELIVERED NEARLY 5,000 BABIES AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE SANCTITY OF LIFE. I BELIEVE LIFE IS A PRECIOUS GIFT FROM GOD, IT BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. I'VE SEEN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT OCCUR FROM THE EARLIEST SAMES OF A SMALL FETUS ALL THE WAY THROUGH BIRTH, THAT THE MAGIC OF THE HEART BEAT AT 26 TO 28 DAYS POST-CONCEPTION IS INDESCRIBABLE. THIS STRENGTHENS MY QUICKS OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE. SINCE 1976 UNTIL THE PASSAGE OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE REFORM LAW, CONGRESS PREVENTED TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION. UNLESS IT'S EXCLUDED FROM PLANS IS TORICALLY MANDATED. THAT'S WHY THE LANGUAGE IN H.R. 3 IS SO IMPORTANT AND NECESSARY. IT EXPLICITLY STATES THAT TAXPAYER DOLLARS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO FUND ABORTION. GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN. BECAUSE SOMETHING IS LEGAL DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD DO IT. REGARDLESS OF HOW PEOPLE FELT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE LAW, PEOPLE SHARED THE BELIEF THAT THE PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON THIS SUBJECT WAS SIMPLY INSUFFICIENT. I AGREE WITH THIS CONCERN AND BELIEVE THAT FURTHER EFFORTS NEED TO BE MADE TO ENSURE THAT NO TAXPAYER FUNDS ARE EVER USED FOR THIS PURPOSE. UNDER H.R. 3, FEDERAL FUNDS ARE STATUTORILY PROHIBITED FROM BEING INVOLVED IN ANY TYPE OF HEALTH CARE COVERAGE OR BENEFITS THAT INCLUDE ABORTION. THIS MEANS FUTURE PRESIDENTS OR EVEN OUR PRESIDENT CAN'T GO BACK AND INSERT ABORTION COVERAGE ON A WHIM. AS LEGISLATORS, WE CARRY THE RESPONSIBLE AND -- RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE TO PROTECT THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE A VOICE. WE MUST MAKE OUR LAWS CONSISTENT WITH OUR SCIENCE AND RESTORE FULL LEGAL PROTECTIONS ALL WAITING TO BE BORN. THIS STARTS WITH LEGISLATION LIKE H R. 3, ONE OF GOVERNMENT'S CORE FUNCTIONS IS TO PROTECT THE MOST INNOCENT AMONG US AND I WILL DO MY BEST TO BE SURE THAT GOVERNMENT FULFILLS ITS DUTY. I WILL ALWAYS FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO LIFE BECAUSE IT IS MY BELIEF THAT WE ARE UNIQUE CREATIONS OF GOD WHO KNOWS US, LOVES US, EVEN BEFORE WE ARE CONCEIVED. I THANK THE GENTLELADY AND I YIELD BACK MY TIME. THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. THE GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK. MADAM SPEAKER, I YIELD TWO MINUTES TO THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MS. NORTON. THE GENTLELADY FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES. I THANK THE GENTLEWOMAN FOR YIELDING AND FOR HER STRONG WORK ON THIS BILL. MADAM SPEAKER, THIS BILL IS UNPRECEDENTED IN A NUMBER OF WAYS. IT'S UNPRECEDENTED IN THAT IT UNIQUELY AFFECT MY DISTRICT AND I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY AT THE HEARING OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHERE IT WAS CONSIDERED. IT IS UNPRECEDENTED IN ITS ATTACK ON A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE, GOING WELL BEYOND THE HYDE AMENDMENT, AND IT IS UNPRECEDENTED IN SEEKING TO FEDERALIZE LOCAL FUNDS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. SECTION 309 OF THIS BILL WOULD MAKE PERMANENT THE ATTACHMENT IN THE RECENT 2011 SPENDING BILL THAT KEEPS THE DISTRICT FROM SPENDING ITS OWN LOCAL FUNDS ON ABORTIONS FOR POOR WOMEN. THAT'S BAD ENOUGH. BUT THE PARTY THAT CAME TO POWER EVEN TO DEINVOLVE FEDERAL POWER BACK TO THE STATE -- THE STATE IS REVERSED IN THIS BILL IN TAKING WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN UNDERSTOOD IN OUR CONSTITUTION TO BE LOCAL POWER, AND WORSE, LOCAL MONEY IN DE-- AND DECIDING HOW IT SHOULD BE SPENT. IT IS A DICTATORSHIP OF LOCAL FUNDS. IT GOES AGAINST EVERY PRINCIPLE THAT THE MAJORITY CLAIMS WHEN IT CITES THE CONSTITUTION. IT GOES AGAINST THE ACCEPTED PRACTICE, A PRACTICE YOU CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IN THE STATES, WHERE 17 STATES HAVE, OF COURSE, SPENT THEIR OWN LOCAL FUNDS ON ABORTIONS FOR POOR WOMEN FOR DECADES, RECOGNIZING THIS COULD NOT BE DONE WITH FEDERAL MONEY. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DOES NOT ASK FOR ONE CENT OF FEDERAL MONEY, AND THE SAME WAY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEMANDS THAT ITS LOCAL FUNDS BE KEPT LOCAL FOR US AS FOR EVERY MEMBER OF THIS BODY. THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. MADAM SPEAKER, I YIELD TWO MINUTES TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM NEW JERSEY, MR. GARRETT. THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY IS RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES. GENTLELADY. BEFORE I BEGIN MY REMARKS, I AM SHOCKED BY THE STATEMENT TO MY -- OF MY FRIEND AND COLLEGE FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AS WELL, WHEN HE MAKES THE BOLD STATEMENT, TAKING AWAY A SUBSIDY, OF SORTS, AND THAT RATHER TRANSLATES TO A TAX INCREASE ON AN INDIVIDUAL. NOTHING, OF COURSE, IS DONE IN THIS LEGISLATION IN THAT EFFECT. I RISE IN FULL SUPPORT OF H.R. 3, THE KNOCKS TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR -- THE NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION ACT. I WANT TO COMMEND EVERYONE WHO WORKED ON THIS, ESPECIALLY TO CONGRESSMAN SMITH, FOR BEING A LEADER ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE. YOU SEE, BY PASSING THIS BILL, WHAT WE REALLY DO, WHAT WE REALLY DO IS ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENTWIDE PROHIBITION ON SUBSIDIES FOR ABORTION AND ABORTION COVERAGE WHILE GIVING THE DOCTORS OPPOSED TO ABORTION CERTAIN PROTECTIONS TO SAFEGUARD THEM FROM PERFORMING ABORTIONS AGAINST THEIR WILL. THIS IS A COMMONSENSE BILL. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE OPINIONS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICANS WHO HAVE VOICED OPPOSITION TO FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ABORTION. SEE, I BELIEVE THAT THE TIME HAS COME TO DO AWAY WITH THE PATCHWORK BAN CURRENTLY IN PLACE WITH THE LAWS THAT EXTEND THE HYDE AMENDMENT TO ALL ASPECTS OF SPENDING AUTHORITY IN CONGRESS. I KNOW MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE SAY THAT CUTTING OFF ABORTION TO SERVICES WILL CAUSE ABORTION NUMBERS TO RISE, THEY SAY. IN FACT, A RESEARCH BY THE PRO-ABORTION INSTITUTE SAID THAT WE WILL SEE A 25% DECREASE IN ABORTIONS. FURTHERMORE, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE OPPOSITION WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE, THIS LEGISLATION WILL NOT AFFECT FUNDING FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES. IT WILL PREVENT FUNDING FOR ABORTION AND ABORTION COVERAGES. SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT TAXPAYERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD BE FUNDING ABORTION COVERAGE. WHAT, JUST LAST WEEK IN INDIANA GOVERNOR DANIELS SIGNED PROBABLY THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE TAXPAYER PROTECTION LAW -- ANOTHER 20 SECONDS. I GIVE 30 SECONDS. THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR 30 SECONDS. SIGNED THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE TAXPAYER PROTECTION LAW FOR PREVENTION OF SUBSIDIZING ABORTIONS. THEY SAID IT WILL PROBABLY GO WHY IS THAT? PEOPLE. LET ME TELL YOU, I AM THE FATHER OF TWO BEAUTIFUL GIRLS. AS I LOOK AT THEM I SEE THE PROMISE OF TOMORROW. MY LIFE IS WITHOUT QUESTION BETTER FOR THE LOVE I SHARE WITH THEM. AMERICA'S BETTER FOR EACH CHILD AND LIFE THAT IS HERE, SO I WILL COME TO THIS FLOOR, CONTINUE TO FIGHT TO PROTECT THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE UNBORN AND EACH OF US THE RIGHT TO LIFE. THE GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK. MADAM SPEAKER, I AM PLEASED TO YIELD 1 3/4 MINUTES TO THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM NEW YORK, MRS. MALONEY. 1 3/4 NEW YORK IS RECOGNIZED. I THANK THE GENTLELADY FOR HER LEADERSHIP ON THIS AND SO MANY IMPORTANT ISSUES. I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR IN RESPONSE TO THE GENTLEMAN'S STATEMENT, THERE IS NO TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS NOW. THERE WEREN'T ANY YESTERDAY AND THERE WON'T BE ANY IN THE FUTURE. H.R. 3 GOES FAR BEYOND CURRENT LAW. IT IS STUNNING IN ITS SCOPE, APPALLING IN ITS INDIFFERENCE AND OUTRAGEOUS IN ITS ARROGANCE. THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE IS ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS WITHOUT ACCESS TO CHOICE. AND H.R. 3 CREATES OBSTACLES FOR WOMEN TO ACCESS SAFE, LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED HEALTH CARE. THIS MAKES ACCESS TO ABORTION COVERAGE INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT. AND I WOULD SAY THAT THE BILL IS NOT ONLY AN ATTACK ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS, IT'S ALSO AN ATTACK ON THE RIGHTS OF THE PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND SMALL BUSINESSES. IT TELLS PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES HOW TO RUN THEIR BUSINESSES, RAISES COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES AND EVEN TELLS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOW THEY MAY SPEND THEIR MONEY. THE BILL MANAGES TO OFFEND NEARLY HIGH-SOUNDING PRINCIPLE THE OTHER SIDE SAYS THEY STAND FOR. SO IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THE FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE WISDOM OF THE FREE MARKET, VOTE NO ON THIS ABSOLUTELY APPALLING PIECE OF WORK. IT IS ANTI-WOMAN, ANTI-CHOICE, ANTI-RESPECT AND ANTI-BUSINESS. IT IS A TOTALLY FLAWED BILL, GOES FAR FURTHER THAN ANY EXISTING LAW AND IT IS THE DEEPEST AND STRONGEST ATTACK ON A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE THAT LIFETIME. AND THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY SAYS ITS PRIORITY IS JOBS AND JOB CRAGS BUT THEIR ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. THEY WANT TO COME INTO THE BEDROOM, THEY WANT TO COME BETWEEN A WOMAN AND HER DOCTOR. IT IS AN APPALLING BILL. PLEASE VOTE NO. THE THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. YIELD ONE MINUTE TO MR. FINCHER, MY COLLEAGUE FROM GEORGIA -- MY BAD -- TENNESSEE. THE GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE. I RISE IN SUPPORT OF THIS RULE. CONGRESSMAN HYDE WROTE, "IT IS BECOMING CULTURALLY FASHIONABLE TO PROTECT THE DEFENSELESS UNBORN." THESE WORDS HOLDS TRUE TODAY SHOWING THAT MAJORITY OF AMERICANS OPPOSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS AND AMERICANS CONSIDER THEMSELVES PRO-LIFE MORE THAN EVER. POLLS ALSO SHOW A LARGE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS CONOT ACCEPT TAXPAYER FUNDS FOR ABORTION. A CNN POLL FOUND THAT 61% OF RESPONDENTS OPPOSE USING PUBLIC FUNDS FOR ABORTIONS. A NOVEMBER, 2009, "WASHINGTON POST" POLL SHOWED 61% OF RESPONDENTS OPPOSE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES FOR HEALTH INSURANCE THAT INCLUDES ABORTION. A SEPTEMBER, 2009, INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH POLL SHOWED THAT 67% OF RESPONDENTS OPPOSE A MEASURE THAT WOULD REQUIRE PEOPLE TO PAY FOR ABORTION COVERAGE WITH THEIR FEDERAL TAXES. OUR CONSTITUENTS AND OUR CONSCIOUS DEMAND US THAT WE WAIT NO LONGER, WE MUST PERMANENTLY END TAXPAYER FUNDING OF ABORTION AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF UNBORN CHILDREN. I YIELD BACK. THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM NEW YORK. MADAM SPEAKER, MAY I INQUIRE OF MY COLLEAGUE IF HE HAS ANY FURTHER SPEAKERS? I DO HAVE ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS. I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. THE GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK TIME. THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. I YIELD TWO MINUTES TO MR. KING, MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE GENTLEMAN FROM IOWA IS RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES. I THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. AND I APPRECIATE THE PRIVILEGE TO COME HERE TO THE FLOOR AND STAND UP FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE THIS -- AS A ROOT OF THIS QUESTION, THE ROOT OF THIS QUESTION IS THE QUESTION OF WHAT IS HUMAN LIFE AND IS IT SACRED IN AWFUL ITS FORM AND IN WHAT INSTANCE DOES IT BEGIN? WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT HUMAN LIFE NEEDS TO BE SACRED IN ALL OF ITS FORMS AND IT BEGINS AT THE INSTANT OF CONCEPTION AND ONCE WE COME TO THAT CONCLUSION WE STAND UP TO DEFEND EVERY VOICELESS, INNOCENT MIRACLE THAT'S ON ITS WAY TO BREATHING FREE AIR IN THIS COUNTRY. AND TO THINK THAT WE ARE COMPELLING THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER TO FUND ABORTIONS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY AND IN FOREIGN LANDS ON OCCASION, BECAUSE WE CAN'T QUITE HEAR THAT VOICE, HENRY HYDE HEARD THAT VOICE AND WE'RE STANDING UP WITH AND FOR HENRY HYDE. I SO MUCH APPRECIATE HIM AND CHRIS SMITH WHO THE PRINCIPAL AUTHOR OF THIS LEGISLATION. I ADVISE IN SUPPORT OF THIS RULE, MADAM SPEAKER, AND I RISE IN SUPPORT OF THE INNOCENT UNBORN, THE CONSCIOUS OF AMERICA MUST BE HEARD IN THIS DEBATE TODAY ON THIS RULE AND ON THE UNDERLYING BILL. THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS NEED TO BE HEARD. PEOPLE NOT HEARD IN THIS LIFE WE WILL HEAR IN THE NEXT, AS HENRY HYDE SO ELOQUENTLY SAID, BUT A AMERICA THAT IS A PRO-LIFE AMERICA WITH OVER 60% THAT OPPOSE FEDERAL FUNDING -- TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS, THIS IS A CONSISTENT POSITION THAT REFLECTS THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WE MUST DRAW THIS LINE, NOT JUST WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD BUT EVERY ABORTION PROVIDER IN THE COUNTRY, IF THEY CAN'T MAKE IT IN THE MARKET ON THEIR OWN, WE HAVE NO BUSINESS SUBSIDIZING THEM WITHOUT REGARD ON THE IMPACT OF OUR OVERALL ECONOMY. MADAM SPEAKER, I AM PLEASED AND PROUD TO BE HERE TODAY TO TAKE THIS STAND, AND I'M PLEASED AND PROUD OF THE ENTIRE PRO-LIFE CAUCUS THAT'S HERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS, BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALIKE, WHO HAVE DONE SO MUCH OVER THE YEARS TO BRING US TO THIS POINT OF CONSENSUS. AND THIS IS A CONSENSUS THAT WILL BE REVEALED ON THE VOTE ON THE RULE AND THE UNDERLYING BILL, A CONSENSUS WITH THE RESOUNDING SUPPORT OF THIS RULE THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. MY TIME. THE GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK. RESERVE. GENTLELADY RESERVES. THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. I HAVE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS. IF THE GENTLELADY WOULD LIKE TO YES. I AM PREPARED TO CLOSE. FIRST WOULD LIKE TO REMIND PEOPLE WHAT WE SAID ABOUT STATUTORY ***. WHEN THIS BILL WAS FIRST INTRODUCED IT MODIFIED THE LONG-STANDING EXEMPTION TO THE HYDE AMENDMENT BY ADDING THE TERM "FORCIBLE" BEFORE THE WORD IN OTHER WORDS, THE VICTIM OF *** HAD TO SHOW RULES AND OTHER MANNERS THAT SHE REALLY WAS FORCIBLY *** BEFORE IT WAS COVERED. THEY CHANGED THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS SUCH AN OUTCRY BUT THEY FOUND ANOTHER WAY TO GET TO THIS TO EXCLUDE VICTIMS OF ***. SAYING THOSE WORDS SCANDALIZES THE HOUSE JEWISH REPORT, WHICH WILL BE USED BY THE COURTS TO -- THE HOUSE JUDICIARY REPORT, WHICH WILL BE USED BY THE COURTS TO INTERPRET THIS BILL, IT WILL NOT ALLOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO SUBSIDIZE ABORTIONS IN CASES OF STATUTORY ***, CLAIMING THIS REFLECTS EXISTING LAW, AND, OF COURSE, IT DOES NOT. STATUTORY *** IS ONE OF THE MOST SERIOUS OF CRIMES BECAUSE THE YOUNG WOMAN INVOLVED IS NOT GIVEN CONSENT AND INDEED IS NOT ALLOWED TO BECAUSE OF HER AGE. HOW DARE WE DO THAT? HAVE THEY NOT SUFFERED ENOUGH? THE HYDE AMENDMENT DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN STATUTORY *** OR ANY OTHER KIND OF ***. IN FACT, A 1978 REGULATION IMPLEMENTS THE THE REGULATION IN FUNDING THE EXEMPTION. NOW, IF MOST PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT WANT THEIR TAXPAYER TO USE THEIR MONEY TO FUND ABORTION, THEY CAN RELAX. WE HAVE NOT USED THAT FOR 38 YEARS. WE WILL NOT CHANGE THAT -- IT'S NOT THE INTENT OF THIS BILL AT ALL. IT'S SIMPLY THE TITLE, WHICH IS MEANINGLESS. INCREASES TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS AND LOWER-INCOME WOMEN AND THEIR FAMILIES, BUT IT SINGLES OUT SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYERS AND PENALIZES THEM IF THEY PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE INSURANCE COVERAGE THAT INCLUDES ABORTION. 2/3 OF ALL VOTERS POLLED OPPOSE THIS DRACONIAN CHANGE TO THE TAX SYSTEM FOR SMALL BUSINESSES COVER ABORTION. EVEN MOST REPUBLICANS, TEA PARTY SUPPORTERS, ANTI-ABORTION WORKERS, AND EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS OPPOSE THE TAX INCREASE. THE HEAD OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SMALL BUSINESS WROTE, THIS IS A SLAP IN THE FACE OF MILLIONS OF SMALL BUSINESS WHO OFFER INSURANCE TO THEIR EMPLOYEES AN ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE NEW TAX CREDIT. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO INSERT THE FULL TEXT OF THIS COLUMN FROM THE SOUTH CAROLINA SMALL BUSINESS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DESCRIBING THIS BILL AS A SLAP IN THE FACE. WITHOUT OBJECTION. THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. I NEED TO CORRECT ONE THING. THE WORD FORCIBLE IS NOWHERE IN THE STATUTE OR THE LEGISLATION AS WE HAVE ON THE FLOOR. MADAM SPEAKER, MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT H.R. 3 IS ABOUT TAKING AWAY THE WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. H.R. 3 IS ABOUT ENSURING THAT TAXPAYERS AREN'T ON THE HOOK FOR PAYING FOR THAT CHOICE. MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE WE WANT TO RAISE YOUR TAXES AND ALLOW THE I.R.S. TO AUDIT WOMEN. AGAIN, THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. THE BILL IS ABOUT ONE THING. KEEPING OUR TAX DOLLARS FROM BEING SPENT FOR ELECTIVE ABORTIONS ON DEMAND. THE UNITED STATES IS CURRENT LIBOR ROING 42 CENTS OF EVERY DOLLAR WE SPEND. WE ARE IN TET AND SPENDING WE NEED TO BE FOCUSED ON BRINGING GOVERNMENT BACK TO OUR CORE MISSION. YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT PAYING FOR ELECTIVE ABORTIONS IS PART OF OUR CORE MISSION. WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME AND I MOVE THE PREVIOUS QUESTION ON THE RESOLUTION. THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA YIELDS BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME. WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE PREVIOUS QUESTION IS ORDERED. THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED AND WITHOUT OBJECTION THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER IS LAID UPON THE TABLE. THE QUESTION IS ON -- THE QUESTION IS ON ADOPTION. THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NO. IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR THE AYES HAVE IT. I ASK FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS. THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE REQUESTED. THOSE FAVORING A VOTE BY THE YEAS AND NAYS WILL RISE. A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING RISEN, THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE ORDERED. MEMBERS WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED AND WITHOUT OBJECTION THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER IS LAID ON THE TABLE. WILL MEMBERS PLEASE CLEAR THE AISLES AND TAKE YOUR CONVERSATIONS OFF THE FLOOR? MEMBERS, CEASE YOUR CONVERSATIONS OR TAKE THEM OFF THE FLOOR, PLEASE. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS RISE? MADAM SPEAKER, PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 237, I CALL UP H.R. 3, THE NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION ACT AND ASK FOR ITS IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION. THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE OF THE BILL. UNION CALENDAR NUMBER 28, H.R. 3, A BILL TO PROHIBIT TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS AND TO PROVIDE FOR CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. PLEASE TAKE YOUR CONVERSATIONS OFF THE FLOOR. THE GENTLEMAN DESERVES TO BE HEARD. THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS. MADAM SPEAKER, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT ALL MEMBERS MAY HAVE FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO REVISE AND INCLUDE OTHER MATERIAL IN H.R. 3. WITHOUT OBJECTION. PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 237 AND IN LIEU OF THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE RECOMMENDED BY THE PRINTED IN THE BILL, THE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE PRINTED IN HOUSE REPORT 112-71 IS ADOPTED AND THE BILL, AS AMENDED, IS CONSIDERED AS READ. THE BILL SHALL BE DEBATABLE FOR ONE HOUR WITH 40 MINUTES EQUALLY DIVIDED AND CONTROLLED BY THE CHAIR AND RANKING MINORITY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIARY. 10 MINUTES EQUALLY DIVIDED AND CONTROLLED BY THE CHAIR AND RANKING MINORITY MEMBER OF THE AND 10 MINUTES EQUALLY DIVIDED AND CONTROLLED BY THE CHAIR AND RANKING MINORITY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE. THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS, MR. SMITH, AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK, MR. NADLER, WILL EACH WILL CONTROL 20 MINUTES. THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS, MR. BRADY, THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN, MR. LEVIN, THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN, MR. UPTON, AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA, MR. WAXMAN, EACH WILL CONTROL FIVE MINUTES. THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS, MR. SMITH. THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. FIRST, LET ME RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY, MR. SMITH, THE CHIEF SPONSOR OF H.R. 3, FOR HIS PERSISTENT LEADERSHIP OVER THE YEARS ON THIS ISSUE. MANY MEMBERS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF ABORTION, BUT ONE THING IS CLEAR, FEDERAL FUNDING OF ABORTION WILL LEAD TO MORE ABORTIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, IN 2009, THERE THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE HAS ESTIMATED THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD PAY AS MANY AS 675,000 ABORTIONS EACH YEAR WITHOUT THE HYDE AMOUNT AND OTHER PROVISION THAT IS PREVENT FEDERAL FUNDING OF ABORTION. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT WANT FEDERALLY FUNDED ABORTIONS. A ZOCK BYE POLL FOUND THAT 77% OF AMERICANS FEEL THAT FEDERAL FUNDS SHOULD NEVER PAY FOR ABORTIONS OR SHOULD PAY ONLY TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER. THAT IS THE POLICY OF THE HYDE AMENDMENT WHICH H.R. 3 WOULD ENACT INTO LAW. H.R. 3 DOES NOT BAN ABORTION. IT ALSO DOES NOT RESTRICT ABORTIONS OR ABORTION COVERAGE IN HEALTH CARE PLANS AS LONG AS THOSE ABORTIONS OR PLANS USE ONLY PRIVATE OR STATE FUNDS. THIS LEGISLATION PLACES NO ADDITIONAL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTIONS. IT SIMPLY PROTECTS TAXPAYERS FROM HAVING TO FUND OR SUBSIDIZE SOMETHING THEY MORALLY OPPOSE. H.R. 3 ALSO IS NECESSARY TO FIX THE RECENT HEALTH CARE LAW. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THAT LAW PREVENTS THE FEDERAL FUNDING OF ABORTIONS UNDER THE PROGRAMS IT CREATES. NEITHER CONGRESS NOR THE ADMINISTRATION SHOULD TAKE THE VIEW THAT THEY KNOW BETTER THAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT IS GOOD FOR THEM. CONGRESS SHOULD PASS H.R. 3 TO CODIFY THE LONG-STANDING BAN ON THE FEDERAL FUNDING OF ABORTIONS. I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. THE OF HIS TIME. THE GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN IS RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.