Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
ALL OF THAT AVAILABLE ONLINE
AT C-SPAN.ORG.
WE ARE LEAVING THAT.
THE HOUSE COMING IN FOR
LEGISLATIVE WORK.
FINISH UP WORK ON A BILL THAT
REPEALS FUNDING FOR THE
HEALTH CENTERS.
ALSO A BILL THAT WILL BLOCK
FEDERAL FUNDING OF ABORTIONS.
LIVE COURT AND JURY OF THE
HOUSE NOW ON C-SPAN -- LIVE
COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE NOW ON
CROPE.
-- C-SPAN.
THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE ENDOWED BY
THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN
UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.
E,
LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF
HAPPINESS.
DURING THIS SESSION OF THE
112TH CONGRESS, AND THIS THE
PEOPLE'S HOUSE, MAY THE HEARTS
OF THESE DUEL ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES BE BLESSED WITH
THE INTEGRITY OF PURPOSE AND
STEADFAST COMMITMENT TO SEEK
AND SERVE THE PEOPLE OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR
THE BETTERMENT OF THIS COUNTRY
AND THE WORLD.
WE ASK THIS ALL IN THE NAME OF
THE ONE GOD, THE GOD OF ALL
NATIONS, AMEN.
THE CHAIR HAS
EXAMINED THE JOURNAL OF THE
LAST DAY'S PROCEEDINGS AND
ANNOUNCES TO THE HOUSE HIS
APPROVAL OF THERE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 1 OF RULE 1,
THE JOURNAL STANDS APPROVED.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WILL
BE LED TODAY BY THE GENTLEMAN
FROM OHIO, MR. JOHNSON.
JOIN WITH ME.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH
IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER
GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY
AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
THE CHAIR WILL
ENTERTAIN UP TO 15 ONE-MINUTE
ON EACH SIDE.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO RISE?
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. SPEAKER, THE AVERAGE FOR
A GALLON OF GAS IN OHIO IS OVER
$4 A GALLON.
AND
IN EASTERN AND SOUTHEASTERN
OHIO THIS IS PARTICULARLY HARD
ON FAMILIES IN RURAL AREAS.
FARMERS, RANCHERS, SENIORS,
WORKING FAMILIES, THESE HIGH
GAS PRICES ARE HAVING A
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON EVERYONE.
THE HIGHER GAS PRICES GO, THE
MORE OF AN IMPACT IT HAS ON OUR
ECONOMY AND OUR CHANCES FOR
REAL ECONOMIC RECOVERY.
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS ARE
WATCHING MONEY THEY COULD
OTHERWISE INVEST IN THEIR
BUSINESSES GO TO PAYING FOR
FUEL.
AND WORKING FAMILIES ARE
ANXIOUSLY REDOING THEIR BUDGETS
TO ACCOUNT FOR HIGHER FUEL
COSTS AND LOOKING FOR WAYS TO
CUT BACK.
WE'RE BLESSED WITH AN ABUNDANCE
OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN OHIO.
WE'RE ONE OF THE HIGHEST COAL
PRODUCING AREAS AND WITH THE
MARCELLUS SHALE RIGHT NEXT DOOR
IN WEST VIRGINIA, WE'RE POISED
TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO
MAKING AMERICA SELF-SUFFICIENT.
WE NEED AN ENERGY STRATEGY THAT
WILL HELP US BE ENERGY
SELF-SUFFICIENT SO WE STOP
RELYING ON OTHER COUNTRIES TO
NOW IS THE TIME TO LEVEL A
PERMATORIUM.
LET'S PUT OURSELVES IN POSITION
TO BE SELF-SUFFICIENT INSTEAD
OF RELYING ON FOREIGN SOURCES
OF OIL.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN RISE?
TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE.
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO H.R.
3 AND REMIND MY COLLEAGUES OF
TWO KEY DATES, JANUARY 11,
2011, THE DAY H.R. 3 WAS
INTRODUCED.
THE AUTHORS OF THIS BILL ISSUED
A BILL TO REDEFINE *** AN
***.
173 MEMBERS SIGNED
THEIR NAMES TO A BILL THAT
WOULD HAVE REDEFINED *** TO
EXCLUDE WOMEN WHO ARE UNKSHES,
MENTAL DISABLED OR FORCED INTO
SEX BY THREAT.
THEY WOULD LIKE US TO FORGET
JANUARY 7, 1973, ON THAT DAY,
THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THE
SUPREME COURT HAD THE RIGHT TO
MAKE A DECISION ABOUT THEIR OWN
BODIES AND THEIR OWN LIVES.
WE WILL NOT FORGET THAT DATE
AND WE WON'T FORGET THE MEMBERS
OF THE BODY WHO WON'T TO --
WANT TO REDEFINE *** AND
INSIST.
WE WILL NOT FORGET, WE WILL NOT
GO BACK AND WE MUST NOT PASS
H.R. 3.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM TEXAS RISE?
ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MADAM SPEAKER, OSAMA
BIN LADEN HAS MET HIS MAKER AND
WE APPRECIATE THE NAVY SEALS IN
ARRANGING THE MEETING.
BUT PAKISTAN GIVES US SOME
TURN.
-- SOME CONCERN.
IT SEEMS PAKISTAN MAY BE
PLAYING BOTH SIDES AND THEY
HAVE A LOT OF EXPLAINING TO DO.
FOR ALL THESE YEARS WE FELT
OSAMA BIN LADEN WAS ON THE RUN,
LIVING IN CAVES.
INSTEAD, HE'S BEEN LIVING IN A
MILLION-DOLLAR COMPOUND JUST
MILES AWAY FROM THE PAKISTANI
BASE.
BUT THE PAKISTANIS SAY THEY
DON'T KNOW WHERE HE IS.
WE NEED A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF
WHEN PAKISTAN KNEW BIN LADEN'S
WHEREABOUTS AND WHEN THEY KNEW
MONEY.
WE HAVE APPROPRIATED $3 MILLION
IN AID TO TO PAKISTAN THIS YEAR
AND UNLESS THEY CAN PROVE THEY
WERE NOT PROVIDING SANCTUARY
FOR AMERICA'S NUMBER ONE ENEMY,
THEY SHOULD NOT RECEIVE ANY
AID.
THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
RISE?
TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
THE
GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED.
I RISE IN STRONG OPPOSITION
TO THE MAJORITY'S ATTEMPT TO
UNDERMINE A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO
CHOOSE A RIGHT THAT THE
FUNDAMENTAL TO A WOMAN'S
FREEDOM.
H.R. 3 WOULD RAISE TAXES ON ANY
AMERICANS WHOSE
EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH CARE
PLAN PROVIDES COVERAGE FOR
ABORTION.
IT ELIMINATES AMERICANS' RIGHTS
TO USE THEIR OWN FUNDS FOR
LEGAL ABORTIONS UNLESS THEY CAN
PROVE TO THE I.R.S. THEY WERE
VICTIMS OF *** OR INSIST.
IT ALLOWS A
HOSPITAL TO REFUSE TO PERFORM
AN ABORTION EVEN IF A WOMAN
WOULD DIE WITHOUT IT.
IT ALLOWS A DOCTOR TO REFUSE TO
PERFORM AN ABORTION EVEN IF THE
PREGNANCY THREATENS A WOMAN'S
HEALTH, AN IT MAKES CHANGE IT
IS TO HOW WE DEFINE ***.
MY COLLEAGUES SAY THEY ARE FOR
NO NEW TAXES AND PRESERVING
LIFE BUT THIS LEGISLATION
BELIES THAT CLAIM.
THANK YOU, AND I YIELD BACK.
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM PENNSYLVANIA RISE?
TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE AND REVISE AND EXTEND.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
THE NEWS THAT OSAMA BIN
LADEN HAD BEEN KILLED BY U.S.
FORCES ON SUNDAY BROUGHT
REASSURANCE TO MANY AROUND THE
WORLD THAT JUSTICE HAD FINALLY
BEEN SERVED.
A MAN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
DEATHS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT
PEOPLE OF ALL RACES AND
RELIGIONS HAD BEEN LOCATED AND
ELIMINATED.
HOWEVER NOT EVERYONE
SAW IT THE SAME WAY.
THE LEADER OF HAMAS IN GAZA
CALLED BIN LADEN A SHEIKH AND
SAID, QUOTE, WE CONDEMN THE
ASSASSINATION AND KILLING OF AN
ARAB HOLY WARRIOR, EP QUOTE
THIS COMES THE SAME WEEK
PALESTINIAN POLITICAL PARTIES
RECONCILED AND FORMED A UNITY
GOVERNMENT.
HOW CAN THE UNITED STATES
PROVIDE AID TO A UNITY
GOVERNMENT IF ONE OF ITS MOST
IMPORTANT LEADERS PRAISES A
MASS MURDERER.
HOW CAN THEY HAVE A GOVERNMENT
COMPOSED OF A PARTY ACTIVELY
SEEKING ITS DESTRUCTION.
THERE CANNOT BE TRUE PEACE AS
LONG AS HAMAS HOLDS UP OSAMA
BIN LADEN AND OTHERS AS TRUE
HEROES.
THEY MUST REALIZE TERRORISM
WILL NEVER BRING THEM TRUE
PEACE AN TRUE INDEPENDENCE.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM RHODE ISLAND RISE?
TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
I RISE TO HONOR AND
RECOGNIZE THE RICH HISTORY OF
THE JEWISH-AMERICAN HISTORY IN
THE UNITED STATES AS WE MARK
JEWISH-AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH.
IT IS FITTING THAT THE WORDS OF
THE JEWISH AMERICAN EMMA
LAZARUS ARE ON THE STATUE OF
LIBERTY, GIVE ME YOUR TIRED,
YOUR POOR, YOUR HUDDLED MASSES
YEARNING TO BREATHE FREE.
JEWISH IMFRANTS ARRIVED HERE AS
PROSPERED, THEY BECAME INVOLVED
IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS AND MADE
LASTING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THIS
COUNTRY.
THEY REPRESENT
SOME OF THE FOREMOST LEADERS IN
MATH, SCIENCE, ARTS AND
CULTURE.
THIS IS FOUND IN JEWISH
AMERICANS WHO WORK TIRELESSLY
TO SEEK A BETTER LIFE FOR
FUTURE GENERATIONS.
IN CELEBRATING MANY MILESTONES
OF JEWISH AMERICANS THIS MONTH,
WE HONOR THE LIVES OF JEWISH
AMERICANS THROUGHOUT OUR
NATION.
TIME TO REMEMBER THE UNIQUE
JEWISH AMERICAN IDENTITY
STEEPED IN HISTORY AND FAITH
AND THEIR TREMENDOUSLY
IMPORTANT CRINGSES TO OUR
NATION.
TIME.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM NEW YORK RISE?
TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE.
THE
MINUTE.
I RISE TODAY TO BRING
ATTENTION TO THE PLENTIFUL
THE UNITED STATES.
MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES MAY NOT
BE AWARE OF TWO STUDIES WHICH
HIGHLIGHTED THE ABUNDANCE OF
THIS CLEAN-BURPING DOMESTIC
FUEL SOURCE THAT HOLDS SO MUCH
PROMISE.
THE FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO
DRAW ATTENTION TO IS THE ENERGY
OUTLOOK FOR 2011, WHICH
ANALYZES CON SUMMINGTS,
PRODUCTION, AND MARKET SFLY AND
DEMAND AND THE DIRECTION THOSE
TRENDS MAY TAKE IN THE FUTURE.
IT ANTICIPATES STRONG
GROWTH IN THE NATURAL GAS
DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF THE
DEVELOPMENT OF SHALE GAS
RESOURCES.
IT NOTES THAT GROWTH IN NATURAL
BUT FOR THE COMBINATION OF
HORIZONTAL DRILLING AND
FRACTURING TECHNOLOGIES WHICH
HAVE MADE SHALE GAS ECONOMICAL
TO PRODUCE.
IT FINDS THAT IT HAS LED TO AN
ANNUAL AVERAGE GROWTH RATE OF
89% FROM 2006 TO 2010.
THE SECOND STUDY I'D LIKE TO
MENTION IS THE AMERICAN GAS
ASSOCIATION'S POTENTIAL GAS
COMMITTEE 2010 BIENNIAL REPORT.
AT THIS POINT, I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA
RISE?
TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE.
THE
GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED.
I RISE IN STRONG OPPOSITION
TO H.R. 3 WHICH THE HOUSE WILL
VOTE ON LATER TODAY.
AFTER VOTING LAST MONTH TO END
MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT FOR
SENIORS, TODAY THE MAJORITY IS
ATTACKING THE WOMEN'S
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.
FOR THE LAST THREE MONTHS WE
HAVE WATCH AS THE MAJORITY
PARTY HAS CONSISTENTLY ATTACKED
THE RIGHT OF WOMEN TO RECEIVE
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE AND
TODAY IS NO DIFFERENT.
H.R. 3 HAS OUTRAGEOUS
PROVISIONS THAT WOULD END
INSURANCE COVERAGE AND REDUCE
WOMEN'S ACCESS TO ABORTION CARE
IN MANY WAYS.
H.R. 3 MANIPULATES
THE TAX CODE TO RESTRICT ACCESS
TO COMPREHENSIVE CARE.
THE BILL RAISES TAXES ON VIMS
AND SMALL BUSINESSES WITH
INSURANCE PLANS THAT COVER
ABORTION, FORCING THEM TO DROP
THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS.
H.R. 3 IS AN UNPRECEDENTED
ATTEMPT TO DENY ACCESS TO FULL
REPRODUCTIVE CARE.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE NO
ON THIS RADICAL ANTI-CHOICE
BILL.
TIME.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA
RISE?
TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE AND REVISE AND EXTEND MY
REMARKS.
GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED.
MADAM SPEAKER, I RISE TODAY
IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO H.R. 3.
THIS DECEPTIVELY TITLED
LEGISLATION IS NOTHING MORE
THAN AN ASSAULT ON WOMEN'S
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE.
IF ENACTED THIS
LEGISLATION WOULD SEVERELY
CURTAIL WOMEN'S ACCESS TO
SERVICES.
WHAT WOULD IT DO?
ON WOMEN.
IT WOULD NARROW THE ALREADY
RESTRICTIVE AREAS THAT THE HYDE
AMENDMENT HAS DEALT WITH.
AND FURTHER, WHAT I FIND MOST
ALARMING, IT WOULD ATTACK THE
COVERAGE FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,
INCLUDING WOMEN, WHO SERVE IN
THE MILITARY.
WHERE IS ALL OF OUR APPLAUSE
NOW?
THE HYDE AMENDMENT CLEARLY
STATES THAT NO TAXPAYER DOLLARS
ARE TO BE USED FOR ABORTION
CARE AND NAZZ NARROWLY PROVIDED
EXCEPTIONS THAT STATE FOR ***,
*** AN HEALTH COMPLICATIONS
THAT ARISE FROM PREGNANCY WHICH
WOULD PUT A MOTHER'S LIFE IN
DANGER.
ARE WE AGAINST THAT?
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE NO
ON THIS BILL, RESOUNDINGLY.
NO ON H.R. 3.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE --
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM OREGON RISE?
I REQUEST PERMISSION TO
ADDRESS THE HOUSE, REVISE AND
EXTEND AND PROVIDE EXTRANEOUS
MATERIAL.
THE
MINUTE.
I RISE IN HONOR OF THE LONG,
PRODUCT I LIFE OF HAROLD S H IS
NITZER WHO GREW ONE OF THE
LARGEST PRIVATELY OWN REAL
ESTATE COMPANIES IN THE WESTERN
UNITED STATES.
HE WAS A
PHILANTHROPIST FOR THE ARTS IN
I PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED HIS
KINDTONS A YOUNG MAN INTERESTED
IN PUBLIC SERVICE.
HE CONTINUED TO BE GENEROUS
WITH HIS OPINIONS AND JADE
VICE, A STORY I KNOW WAS
REPEATED MANY TIMES.
HIS MANY CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR
COMMUNITY WILL BE ENJOYED FOR
YEN RATIONS TO COME.
WE HONOR HIS LIFE EVEN AS WE
MOURN HIS PASSING AND EXTEND
OUR CONDOLENCES TO HIS WIFE OF
62 YEARS, ARLENE, HIS SON
JORDAN, AND COUNTLESS FRIENDS.
THE PEOPLE IN MICHIGAN ARE
CLEAR, OUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY
IS JOBS, AND YET THE REPUBLICAN
MAJORITY HERE IN WASHINGTON IS
ONCE AGAIN IGNORING THE ECONOMY
AND PUSHING A BILL THAT RAISE
TAXES AND ATTACKS WOMEN'S
HEALTH CARE CHOICES.
CURRENT LAW ALREADY PROHIBITS
FEDERAL FUNDS FROM COVERING
ABORTION SERVICES AND IT HAS
FOR 30 YEARS.
NOW REPUBLICANS WANT TO STOP
PRIVATE INSURERS FROM OFFERING
COVERAGE AND THEY WANT TO BAN
WOMEN FROM PURCHASING A
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE PLAN
WITH THEIR OWN MONEY.
H.R. 3 IS NOT ABOUT TAXPAYER
FUNDING, AND IT'S CERTAINLY NOT
ABOUT REDUCING THE DEFICIT.
IT IS AN EXTREME PLAN THAT WILL
RAISE TAXES ON ANY PERSON OR
BUSINESS THAT BUYS INSURANCE
THAT INCLUDES ABORTION
COVERAGE.
THAT'S RIGHT, IF A SMALL
BUSINESS WANTS TO TREAT WOMEN
EQUALLY AND GUARANTEE THEM
ACCESS TO LEGAL HEALTH CARE
SERVICES PAID FOR WITH THEIR
OWN MONEY, THAT BUSINESS WILL
PAY HIGHER TAXES.
DO NOT BE FOOLED ABOUT TALK
ABOUT TAXPAYER FUNDING, THIS
BILL IS HARMFUL TO WOMEN'S
HEALTH.
IT UNDERMINES THE RIGHT TO
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE NO
ON THIS BILL LATER TODAY.
I YIELD BACK.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM CONNECTICUT RISE?
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
RISE THIS MORNING WITH A
QUESTION WHICH IS, WHAT ARE WE
DOING?
WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE?
LIKE ALL 434 OF MY COLLEAGUES,
I JUST SPENT TWO WEEKS AT HOME
LISTENING TO MY CONSTITUENTS
AND I HEARD ONE MESSAGE.
DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN, DON'T
LET A SECOND GO BY, WORK TO
RESTORE JOBS IN THIS COUNTRY,
IMPROVE THE ECONOMY.
AND I GET DOWN HERE ON MONDAY
AND WHAT DO WE DO THIS WEEK?
WE VOTED IN THIS CHAMBER TO
ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR SCHOOL
BASED HEALTH CENTERS.
FUNDING FOR KIDS WHO DON'T HAVE
ANY OTHER WAY TO SEE A DOCTOR.
TODAY THANKS TO THE REPUBLICAN
MAJORITY WE WILL VOTE TO TRY TO
SCALE BACK THE RIGHT OF WOMEN
TO HAVE ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTH CARE.
AND LATER ON THIS WEEK, WE ARE
GOING TO TAKE UP MEASURES THAT
WILL KEEP THE GRAVY TRAIN
FLOWING TO THE OIL COMPANIES.
THE $4 BILLION IN OUR TAXPAYER
MONEY THAT GOES TO COMPANIES
LIKE EXXONMOBIL WHICH LAST WEEK
REPORTED $10 BILLION IN
PROFITS.
I'M GLAD EXXONMOBIL IS MAKING
MONEY, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT?
THEY DON'T NEED OURS.
SO WHAT ARE WE DOING?
WHEN IS THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY
GOING TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT THE
ONE THING THAT MY CONSTITUENTS
JOBS.
THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY FROM ILLINOIS RISE?
THE GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED.
I RISE IN
STRONG OPPOSITION TO H.R. 3.
REPUBLICANS SAID THAT THEY ARE
FOR SMALLER GOVERNMENT.
BUT THAT ENDS WHEN IT COMES TO
WOMEN.
IN ORDER TO CURTAIL WOMEN'S
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, IT ISN'T
ENOUGH TO PREVENT THE PUBLIC
DOLLARS FROM HELPING POOR WOMEN
END A DANGEROUS OR UNPLANNED
PREGNANCY, THAT'S ALREADY THE
NO PUBLIC MONEY FOR ABORTIONS.
BUT NOW THEY ARE GOING TO RAISE
TAXES ON SMALL BUSINESSES
TELLING THEM THAT IF THEY OFFER
A HEALTH PLAN FOR MEN OR WOMEN,
THAT HAS THE GALL TO COVER
ABORTIONS -- BY THE WAY THAT'S
ABOUT 90% OF PLANS THAT COVER
ALL LEGAL PROCEDURES, THEN THEY
CAN NO LONGER GET A TAX BREAK
FOR OFFERING SUCH A PLAN.
RAISING TAXES ON BUSINESSES
THAT OFFER COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH
PLANS.
TODAY.
NOW EVEN PRIVATE MONEY OF
INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES, MEN
TAX.
SO SO MUCH FOR SMALL GOVERNMENT
AND LOWER TAXES THAT THE
REPUBLICANS TALK ABOUT.
I YIELD BACK.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA
RISE?
THE GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED.
MADAM SPEAKER, I RISE TODAY
IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 3, THE NO
TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION
ACT.
FIRST OF ALL, TO
IMPLY THAT TAXPAYERS FUND
NOPE.
NOT ONE PENNY CAN BE SPENT ON
ABORTIONS BECAUSE OF THE HYDE
AMENDMENT WHICH PASSED ON
SEPTEMBER 30, 1976.
WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS TO PLAY
REPRODUCTIVE ROULETTE WITH THE
TAX CODE.
UNDER H.R. 3, IF SOMEONE BUYS
PRIVATE INSURANCE THAT INCLUDES
COVERAGE FOR ABORTIONS, THEY
WILL BE TAXED.
IF SOMEONE BUYS PRIVATE
INSURANCE, USING YOUR OWN
MONEY, OBVIOUSLY, THAT DOESN'T
INCLUDE COVERAGE FOR ABORTIONS,
THEN THEY CAN DEDUCT THE COST
TAXES.
THIS WOULD TURN OUR TAX
COLLECTION AGENCY INTO A HEALTH
CARE POLICING AGENCY.
I SUPPORT A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO
OPT FOR OR AGAINST ABORTION.
THE DECISION IS PRIVATE.
IT'S A MATTER OF FAITH.
IT'S A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE AND
THIS.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, THIS IS AN
ATTACK ON WOMEN'S HEALTH AND
IT'S A GIANT STEP BACK FOR THE
EQUALITY WE HAVE WORKED SO HARD
TO ACHIEVE.
THIS IS WRONG --
THE
GENTLELADY'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
OPPOSE IT.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM NEW JERSEY RISE?
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MADAM SPEAKER, I ALSO RISE
IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO H.R. 3.
OUR FIRST PRIORITIES
HERE IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES MUST BE HELPING
SUPPORTING MIDDLE CLASS
YET MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS INTO
THIS CONGRESS WE HAVE NOT
CONSIDERED ONE BILL, NOT ONE
BILL, THAT WOULD ACHIEVE THESE
GOALS.
INSTEAD, WE HAVE BEFORE US
TODAY H.R. 3, ONE OF THE
CENTERPIECES OF THE REPUBLICAN
AGENDA.
AND IT WOULD LIMIT THE HEALTH
CARE CHOICES OF WOMEN.
NOW, EVEN IF ALL IT DID IS WHAT
THE NAME IMPLIES, TO PROHIBIT
FEDERAL SUBSIDIES FOR ABORTION,
IT WOULD BE REDUNDANT,
UNNECESSARY, AND MISGUIDED.
BUT IT'S MUCH WORSE THAN THAT.
IN TRUTH IT'S AN UNPRECEDENTED
AND EXTREME ATTEMPT TO LIMIT
HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
AMERICAN WOMEN TO RAISE TAXES
ON SMALL BUSINESSES, TO
INFRINGE ON LEGALLY PROTECTED
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN SERVICE
WOMEN, TO MAKE THIS LEGAL,
CONSTITUTIONAL, AND PROTECTED
MEDICAL PROCEDURE INACCESSIBLE
TO WOMEN.
I OPPOSE H.R. 3 AND URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO VOTE NO AND I
URGE THE MAJORITY TO GET TO
WORK HELPING AMERICANS TO GET
TO WORK.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM CALIFORNIA RISE?
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
IT APPEARS THAT THERE ARE SOME
IN THIS BODY WHO BELIEVE THAT
IF YOU STATE A FALSEHOOD OFTEN
ENOUGH, PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE
THAT IT'S THE TRUTH.
THAT'S WHAT THE BILL BEFORE US
IS ALL ABOUT.
AN ATTEMPT TO LEGISLATE
SOMETHING THAT ISN'T.
THE PROPONENTS OF H.R. 3 WANT
YOU TO BELIEVE THAT ABORTION IS
RAMPANT IN AMERICA AND WE SPEND
ZILLIONS OF FEDERAL DOLLARS A
YEAR AND THIS BILL WILL STOP
THE USE OF THOSE FEDERAL FUNDS.
THIS IS A CROCKETT OF BALONEY.
EVERYONE IN THIS HOUSE KNOWS
THAT FEDERAL FUNDS ARE NOT
SPENT ON ABORTIONS.
IT'S BEEN THE LAW OF THIS LAND
FOR THE LAST 35 YEARS.
H.R. 3 WILL HAVE NO EFFECT,
ZERO, NGATA, ON THE USE OF
FEDERAL FUNDS ON ABORTION
SERVICES IN AMERICA BECAUSE OF
THE LAW UNDER WHICH WE ARE
ALREADY OPERATING.
BUT WHAT H.R. 3 WILL DO IS
DRASTICALLY CODIFY AN UNTRUTH.
IT WILL REACH INTO THE POCKETS
OF WOMEN AND PREVENT THEM FROM
USING THEIR OWN MONEY, THEIR
OWN PRIVATE MONEY ON PURCHASING
HEALTH CARE INSURANCE WHICH
COVERS ABORTION SERVICES.
THIS IS A MASS INTRUSION INTO
THE PRIVACY LIVES OF PEOPLE AND
BUSINESSES.
IT SHOULD BE DEFEATED.
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK RISE?
THE GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED.
LATER TODAY THE
HOUSE WILL CONTINUE ITS EXTREME
ASSAULT ON WOMEN'S HEALTH.
H.R. 3 WOULD PREVENT SMALL
BUSINESSES AND FAMILIES FROM
RECEIVING TAX CREDITS FOR
PRIVATE INSURANCE COVERAGE THAT
PROCEDURES.
ALLOW HOSPITALS TO DENY
LIFESAVING CARE TO WOMEN.
IF AUDITED POTENTIALLY REQUIRE
VICTIMS TO PROVE TO THE I.R.S.
AGENTS THEY WERE ***.
MOST TROUBLING IS THE REPORT
ACCOMPANYING THE BILL, RADICAL
REPUBLICANS WANT TO LIMIT THE
EXCEPTION FOR *** VICTIMS WHO
CAN ACCESS FULL LEGAL HEALTH
SERVICES TO ONLY FORCIBLE ***
VICTIMS.
THIS BILL TO LIMIT WOMEN'S
HEALTH SERVICES IS A SHAMEFUL
DISTRACTION FROM THE PUBLIC'S
TOP RYOR, CREATING JOBS.
-- TOP PRIORITY.
CREATING JOBS.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM KENTUCKY RISE?
TO ADDRESS THE
HOUSE FOR ONE MINUTE.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
WITH GAS PRICES IN
MY DISTRICT IN LOUISVILLE,
KENTUCKY, HITTING 4D AS THEY
ARE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY,
EXXONMOBIL JUST REPORTED AN
EARNINGS OF $10.7 BILLION FOR
THE QUARTER, ALMOST 70% HIGHER
THAN LAST WEEK.
B.P., CONOCO, SHELL, AND
CHEVRON ALSO REPORTED HUGE
INCREASES IN PROFITS.
WE ARE STILL GIVING THEM
TAXPAYER FINANCED SUBSIDIES.
LAST WEEK THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
BUDGET COMMITTEE SAID HE THINKS
WE OUGHT TO DO AWAY WITH THESE
SUBSIDIES, YET HE AND THE REST
OF THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY ARE
PUSHING A BUDGET THAT NOT ONLY
SUSTAINS THOSE GIVE AWAYS TO
OIL COMPANIES, BUT ALSO WOULD
LOWER TAXES FOR BILLIONAIRES,
ALL AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR
SENIORS, OUR STUDENTS, AND
STRUGGLING FAMILIES WHO ARE
PAYING THAT $4 A GALLON ALL
OVER THE COUNTRY.
WE ARE TO DO AWAY WITH THESE
SUBSIDIES AND THE DEMOCRATS
HAVE INTRODUCED THE BIG OIL
WELFARE REPEAL ACT TO DO JUST
THAT.
IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT DEFICIT
REDUCTION AND EQUITY IN THIS
COUNTRY AND FAIRNESS, WE WILL
PASS THE BIG OIL WELFARE REPEAL
ACT AND WE WILL HELP TO BEGIN
TO RETURN THIS COUNTRY TO
HAVING AN ECONOMY THAT WORKS
FOR EVERYBODY AND NOT JUST
EXXONMOBIL.
I YIELD BACK.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM NEW YORK RISE?
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
ONE MINUTE.
I RISE IN
OPPOSITION TO H.R. 3 WHICH HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXPAYER
FUNDING OF ABORTION.
RIGHT OR WRONG FEDERAL FUNDING
FOR ABORTION HASN'T BEEN
ALLOWED FOR MORE THAN THREE
DECADES.
H.R. 3 HAS EVERYTHING TO DO
WITH INFRINGING ON THE ACTUALLY
PROTECTED RIGHT TO AN ABORTION
THAT HAS BEEN THE LAW OF THE
LAND FOR 38 YEARS.
FOR YEARS WE HAVE BEEN
LISTENING TO REPUBLICANS CALL
FOR SMALLER GOVERNMENT, LESS
REGULATION, FEWER TAXES.
THE BUT THIS BILL REPRESENTS
THE OPPOSITE OF THESE VALUES.
IT'S MORE REGULATION ON
BUSINESS, MORE REGULATION ON
HEALTH CARE DECISIONS THAT
SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO WOMEN AND
THEIR DOCTORS.
IT'S MORE TAXES ON SMALL
BUSINESS.
MORE TAXES ON WOMEN.
AND IT'S MORE CONTROL BY
ANTI-CHOICE EXTREMISTS IN
WASHINGTON.
FINALLY, THIS BILL ISN'T ABOUT
JOB CREATION, EITHER.
INSTEAD IT'S ABOUT BRINGING UP
DIVISIVE LEGISLATION THAT HAS
NO HOPE OF BECOMING LAW IN
ORDER TO DIVIDE AND DISTRACT
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
IT'S BEEN FOUR MONTHS AND STILL
THE NEW MAJORITY HERE HASN'T
BROUGHT A SERIOUS BILL ABOUT
JOB CREATION TO THIS FLOOR FOR
A VOTE.
IT'S TIME TO GET BACK TO THE
WORK OF PUTTING AMERICANS BACK
TO WORK.
LET'S DO THAT.
I YIELD BACK.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM FLORIDA RISE?
MADAM SPEAKER, BY DIRECTION
OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES I
CALL UP HOUSE RESOLUTION 237
CONSIDERATION.
CLERK WILL REPORT THE
RESOLUTION.
HOUSE CALENDAR
NUMBER 33, HOUSE RESOLUTION
237, RESOLVED, THAT UPON THE
ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION IT
SHALL BE IN ORDER TO CONSIDER
IN THE HOUSE THE BILL, H.R. 3,
TO PROHIBIT TAXPAYER FUNDED
ABORTIONS AND TO PROVIDE FOR
CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
ALL POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST
CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL ARE
WAIVED.
IN LIEU OF THE AMENDMENT IN THE
NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY NOW PRINTED IN
THE BILL, THE AMENDMENT IN THE
NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
PROHIBITED -- PRINTED IN THE
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
RULES DAKPPING THIS RESOLUTION
SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ADOPTED.
THE BILL AS AMENDED SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AS READ.
ALL POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST
PROVISIONS IN THE BILL AS
AMENDED ARE WAIVED.
THE PREVIOUS QUESTION SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AS ORDERED ON THE
BILL AS AMENDED TO FINAL
PASSAGE WITHOUT INTERVENING
MOTION EXCEPT ONE, ONE HOUR OF
DEBATE WITH 40 MINUTES EQUALLY
DIVIDED AND CONTROLLED BY THE
CHAIR AND RANKING MINORITY
MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY.
10 MINUTES EQUALLY DIVIDED AND
CONTROLLED BY THE CHAIR AND
RANKING MINORITY MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS.
AND 10 MINUTES EQUALLY DIVIDED
AND CONTROLLED BY THE CHAIR AND
RANKING MINORITY MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
COMMERCE.
AND TWO, ONE MOTION TO RECOMMIT
WITH OR WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE HOUR.
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEBATE
ONLY, I YIELD THE CUSTOMARY 30
MINUTES TO THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM
NEW YORK, MS. SLAUGHTER.
PENDING WHICH I YIELD MYSELF
SUCH TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
DURING CONSIDERATION OF THIS
RESOLUTION ALL TIME YIELDED IS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEBATE ONLY.
MADAM SPEAKER, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT ALL MEMBERS MAY
HAVE FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO
REVISE AND EXTEND THEIR REMARKS
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
HOUSE RESOLUTION 237
PROVIDES FOR A CLOSED RULE FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3.
THE RULE PROVIDES FOR AMPLE
DEBATE ON THIS BILL AND GIVES
MEMBERS OF BOTH THE MINORITY
AND MAJORITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE DEBATE.
MADAM SPEAKER, I RISE TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF THIS RULE AND THE
UNDERLYING BILL.
FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS WE HAVE
USED A PATCHWORK SYSTEM OF
CLAUSES AND AMENDMENTS TO
PROTECT AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS
FROM BEING USED TO PAY FOR
ABORTIONS.
EVERY YEAR
CONGRESS HAS TO A --
EVERY YEAR CONGRESS
HAS TO ATTACH AMENDMENTS TO
SPECIFICALLY STATING FUNDS
SPENT IN THAT LEGISLATION MAY
NOT BE USED FOR ELECTIVE
ABORTIONS.
EVERY YEAR THESE AMENDMENTS
PASS.
THESE AMENDMENTS PASS, MADAM
SPEAKER, BECAUSE MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS KNOW AND RECOGNIZE THE
FACT THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF
AMERICANS DO NOT WANT THEIR
HARD EARNED MONEY TO BE SPENT
FOR ABORTIONS OF INNOCENT
UNBORN LIVES.
IN 2010 THE ZOGBY O'LEARY POLL
FOUND THAT 77% OF ALL AMERICANS
BELIEVE THAT FEDERAL FUNDS
SHOULD NEVER BE USED TO PAY FOR
ABORTIONS OR SHOULD ONLY BE
USED TO SAVE THE LIFE OF A
MOTHER.
77%, MADAM SPEAKER.
THIS NUMBER PROVES THAT EVEN
PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT A WOMAN'S
RIGHT TO CHOOSE STILL BELIEVE
THAT TAX DOLLARS SHOULD NOT PAY
FOR THAT CHOICE.
CLEARLY, A TIME HAS COME TO
MOVE BEYOND THIS PIECEMEAL
APPROACH -- APPROACH TO ACHANGE
THE WAY THE NATION ADDRESSES
THIS ISSUE.
AMONG THE RIDERS MADE PERMANENT
TO H.R. 3 ARE, THE HYDE
AMENDMENT, WHICH PROHIBITS
FUNDING FOR ELECTIVE ABORTION
COVERAGE THROUGH ANY PROGRAM
FUNDED THROUGH THE ANNUAL
LABOR, HEALTH, AND HUMAN
SERVICES APPROPRIATION ACT.
THE HOLMES AMENDMENT WHICH
PROHIBITS FUPPEDING FOR
ABORTION AS A METHOD OF FAMILY
PLANNING OVERSEAS.
THE SMITH FEDERAL EMPLOYEE
HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN AMENDMENT
WHICH PROHIBITS FUNDING FOR
ELECTED ABORTION COVERAGE FOR
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
THE DORNAN AMENDMENT WHICH
PROHIBITS THE USE OF
CONGRESSIONALLY APPROPRIATED
FUNDS FOR ABORTION IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE WHICH
ENSURING THAT -- ENSURES THAT
RESIP YENS OF FEDERAL FUNDING
DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
DOCTORS, NURSES, OR HOSPITALS
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT PAY FOR,
COVER, OR REFER FOR ABORTIONS.
MADAM SPEAKER A WOMAN'S RIGHT
TO CHOOSE CAN BE A DIVISIVE
ISSUE THAT PLITS AMERICANS DOWN
THE ISSUE.
HOWEVER, WE AREN'T TALKING
ABOUT A 50-50 ISSUE.
WE'RE TALKING 777%.
CLEARLY A MAJORITY.
JUST -- 77%.
CLEARLY A MAJORITY.
JUST AS MILLIONS OF AMERICANS
BELIEVE TAX DOLLARS SHOULDN'T
GO TO PAY FOR A ABORTIONS, SO
DO THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FROM
BOTH PARTIES.
THERE ARE 227 BIPARTISAN
CO-SPONSORS FOR H.R. 3.
I'M PROUD TO BE ONE OF THE
CO-SPONSORS.
IT WILL ENSURE THAT TAXPAYERS
WON'T BE FORCED TO FUND WHAT
MANY CONSIDER THE DESTRUCTION
OF HUMAN LIFE THROUGH ABORTION
ON DEMAND.
THE NO TAXPAYER FUNDING
ABORTION ACT WILL ESTABLISH A
GOVERNMENT-WIDE STATUTORY
PROHIBITION ON FUNDING ABORTION
OR INSURANCE COVERAGE THAT
INCLUDES ABORTION.
THIS COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH
WILL REDUCE THE NEED FOR
NUMEROUS SEPARATE ABORTION
FUNDING RIDERS.
IT ELIMINATES THE
ABORTION-RELATED AMENDMENTS TO
APPROPRIATION BILLS, BILLS THAT
THE RULES OF THE HOUSE REMINE
US AREN'T EVEN SPOWED TO
LEGISLATE THROUGH AMENDMENTS.
IT ENSURES THAT ALL FEDERAL
PROGRAMS ARE SUBJECT TO THIS
IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD.
ONCE AGAIN, MA'AM, I RISE IN
SUPPORT OF THIS RULE AN
UNDERLYING LEGISLATION.
I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
VOTE YES ON THE RULE AND YES ON
THE UNDERLYING BILL AND RESERVE
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FLORIDA RESERVES.
THE GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK.
THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.
WE HAVE HAD MANY MISNAMED BILLS
TO MAKE SOME KIND OF POINT.
BUT THIS ONE
DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO
WITH RESTRICTING FEDERAL MONEY
FOR USE IN ABORTIONS.
THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE FOR 30
YEARS THIS BILL ACTUALLY SAYS,
MAKE SURE THAT ALL INSURANCE
COMPANIES NEVER COVER THEM
AGAIN REGARDLESS OF
CIRCUMSTANCES.
WITH NO OTHER MEDICAL PROCEDURE
WOULD WE BE STANDING HERE
TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S BEST FOR
AMERICAN CITIZENS.
IN ALL MY YEARS IN CONGRESS I
HAVE NEVER HAD TO DEBATE A BILL
ABOUT HOW AND WHEN A PATIENT
CAN RECEIVE AN APPENDECTOMY OR
HOW A PATIENT CAN RECEIVE
CORRECTIVE SURGERY, NOR IS IT
LEGAL TO HAVE A VASECTOMY, YET
HERE WE ARE TODAY DEBATING A
BILL THAT WILL REACH FAR BEYOND
THE STATUS QUO AND PLACE
RESTRICTIONS ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
RIGHT TO ACCESS FOR
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE.
IN THE CASE OF ABORTION, IT HAS
BEEN DECIDED WITH THIS BILL
THEY CAN DICTATE HOW AND WHEN A
WOMAN IS ALLOWED TO RECEIVE
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE.
IN PART BECAUSE WOMEN ARE
INSTINCTUAL NURTURES, THE
DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
TO HAVE AN ABORTION IS ONE OF
THE MOST PERSONAL AND IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT DECISIONS THEY'LL
IN MAKING THIS DECISION, A
WOMAN SHOULD BE FREE TO CONSULT
WITH WHOMEVER SHE PLEASES,
WHETHER IT BE HER DOCTOR, HER
SPOUSES -- HER SPOUSE, HER
FAMILY, CONFIDANT OR RELIGIOUS
ADVISOR.
BUT A WOMAN SHOULD NEVER, NEVER
BE FORCED TO ADHERE TO THE
EXTREME RESTRICTIONS PLACED
UPON HER BY MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS.
I SERVED IN THREE LEGISLATURES
AN EVERY ONE OF THEM, THERE'S
ALWAYS MEN IN BLUE SUITS WHO
KNEW VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE LIFE
ALTERING EXPERIENCE OF
PREGNANCY AND BIRTH WHO
DEMANDED THIS KIND OF ACTION.
I'VE OFTEN SPOKEN IN SUPPORT OF
A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO ACCESS AN
ABORTION AND HAD MANY PEOPLE
INCLUDING SOME OF MY
CONSTITUENTS WHO DISAGREE WITH
THAT, AND -- WHO DISAGREE WITH
ME, AND THAT'S FINE.
BUT THEY HAVE NEVER TRIED TO BY
LAW ENFORCE UPON ME WHAT THEY
BELIEVE.
I WAS ASKED BY A MAN WHO WAS
STRONGLY OPPOSED TO A WOMAN'S
RIGHT TO CHOOSE, WHAT SHOULD BE
DONE ABOUT THAT.
AND MY RESPONSE TO HIM WAS
SIMPLE AND PERSONAL AND STILL
APPLIES TODAY.
I ASKED HIM THAT, IF GOD FORBID
HE EVER FINDS HIMSELF IN A
DIFFICULT POSITION OF HAVING TO
DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT HIS WIFE
NEEDED TO HAVE AN ABORTION,
EITHER BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH OF
THE FETUS OR THE MOTHER WAS IN
DANGEROUS, OR OTHER PERSONAL OR
PRIVATE MATTER, IF HE -- IS HE
WILLING TO SAY TO PEOPLE
GATHERED IN THE HOSPITAL AND
DOING DISCUSSION, NO DECISION
CAN BE MADE UNTIL LOUISE
SLAUGHTER GETS HERE, BECAUSE
CONGRESS WILL MAKE THAT
DECISION FOR HIM.
THE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION IS
ALREADY A PROCEDURE THAT'S
CAREFULLY REGULATED IN THE
DECISION OF ROE V. WADE.
TODAY'S LEGISLATION WOULD GO
FAR BEYOND THE STATUS QUO AND
FURTHER RESTRICT ACCESS IN AN
ATTEMPT TO MAKE IT PRACTICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE TO RECEIVE AN
ABORTION UNDER THESE LAWS.
TODAY'S BILL CHANGES THE TAX
SYSTEM.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT, I
WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THIS,
FOR PRIVATE HEALTH CARE PLANS,
THAT OFFER ABORTION SERVICE TO
SMALL BUSINESSES AND
INDIVIDUALS AS MOST OF THEM DO.
IF PASSED INTO LAW THIS BILL
WOULD PRESSURE PRIVATE HEALTH
INSURANCE PLANS TO STOP
OFFERING THAT COVERAGE
AND THAT, MADAM SPEAKER, IS THE
PURPOSE OF THIS BILL.
IN ADDITION, AND MOST
EGREGIOUSLY, TODAY'S
LEGISLATION OPENS THE DOOR TO
THE I.R.S. AUDIT OF *** AND
INSIST SURVIVORS TO PROVE THAT
THEY FOLLOWED THE LAW WHEN
PAYING FOR AN ABORTION.
DO WE DO THIS WITH ANYTHING
ELSE I'M ASTONISHED TO PLACE
THIS KIND OF BURDEN ON MEDICAL
PROCEDURE.
IT'S BEEN DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY
TO CHIP AWAY AT THE RIGHTS OF
WOMEN.
MOST EGREGIOUSLY, THIS BILL HAS
PUT A DANGEROUS PROVISION INTO
THE COMMITTEE REPORT THAT
ACCOMPANIES THIS BILL.
PLEASE LISTEN UP.
YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT THIS
SAYS.
AND IT'S REPORT LANGUAGE THAT'S
AS IMPORTANT AS THE BILL
ITSELF.
THAT REPORT LANGUAGE STATES THE
LEGISLATION IS INTENDED TO
PROHIBIT THE USE OF FEDERAL
MONEY TO SUBSIDIZE ABORTIONS IN
CASES OF STATUTORY ***.
THAT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS
THE *** OF A CHILD TOO YOUNG
TO GIVE CONSENT.
NOW, THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A
MOMENT.
THIS BILL FOREBIDS ANY MONEY
BEING USED TO HELP THAT CHILD.
IT'S NOT BAD ENOUGH THAT THEY
HAVE BEEN *** OR THAT THEY
ARE VICTIMS OF ***.
NOW WE'RE TELLING THEM THEY
HAVE TO KEEP RECORDS SO THAT
THEY CAN PROVE TO THE I.R.S.
THAT THEY FOLLOWED THE LAW.
THAT IS WHAT I THINK ABOUT WHEN
I MADE THE STATEMENT EARLIER
THIS SPRING ABOUT SHOW ME YOUR
PAPERS.
AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THIS
BILL IS ASKING TO DO.
THIS BILL BECOMES LAW, THINK
ABOUT THE STATUTORY ***, THINK
ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN, THINK
ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN.
IF IT BECOMES LAW, THE
COMMITTEE REPORT WILL BECOME
ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS RELIED
UPON BY THE COURTS WHEN
DECIDING THE CASES ABOUT
ABORTION.
WITH A COMMITTEE REPORT IN HAND
A FUTURE JUSTICE WOULD HAVE THE
DOCUMENT THEY IMMEDIATE TO
FURTHER RESTRICT ACCESS TO
ABORTIONS FOR VICTIMS OF ***
AND INSIST.
-- AND ***.
IF THIS SOUNDS EXTREME, BELIEVE
ME, IT IS.
WE, LIKE OUR NATION'S FOUNDERS,
KNOW THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL IS
ENTITLED TO HIS OR HER BELIEFS.
BUT NO MATTER HOW STRONGLY WE
BELIEVE THEM, WE SHOULD NOT BE
ALLOWED TO FORCE THEM UPON
OTHERS AS WE WISH.
YET PLACING AN IDEOLOGY UPON
OTHERS AND RESTRICTING THEIR
CHOICES WHEN IT COMES TO
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH IS THE
SPIRIT BEHIND TODAY'S
LEGISLATION AND ONE OF THE MANY
REASONS WHY IT SHOULD BE
STOPPED.
AS WE ALL KNOW, AT THE TIME OF
OUR NATION'S FOUNDING, THE IDEA
OF EQUAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
WAS FAR FROM REALIZED.
IN FACT, IT WAS NOT EVEN OF
MUCH CONCERN.
AFRICAN-AMERICANS WERE
PROPERTY.
WOMEN COULD NOT VOTE OR OWN
ANYTHING AND INDEED, A PREGNANT
WOMAN WHO WAS WIDOWED COULD
FIND THAT HER CHILD HAD BEEN
WILLED AWAY FROM HER BY HER
HUSBAND WHO HAD ALL THE RIGHTS.
NATIVE AMERICANS WERE PUSHED
OFF THEIR LAND AND OUT OF OUR
SOCIETY.
WITH GREAT STRUGGLE, CERTAINLY
I KNOW THE STRUGGLE FOR WOMEN'S
RIGHTS BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED
IN MY OWN DISTRICT WHERE THAT
STRUGGLE BEGAN.
OVER TIME, WE'VE RIGHTED MANY
OF THESE WRONGS AND AS A NATION
WE'VE COME TO BELIEVE THAT MANY
WOMEN OF EVERY COLOR AND CREED
ARE CREATED EQUAL.
THAT WE ARE ALL ENTITLED TO THE
RIGHTS AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS
AT THE CORE OF OUR NATION'S
IDEALS.
TODAY'S PROPOSED LEGISLATION UP
ENDS THE PRINCIPLE OF RIGHTS
AND FREEDOMS BY PLACING SEVERE
RESTRICTIONS ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALLY ESTABLISHED
RIGHT TO ABORTION.
INSTEAD OF ESTABLISHING THIS,
THEY SHOULD RESPECT THE RIGHTS
OF WOMEN AND UPHOLD THEIR
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
RIGHTS.
I STRONGLY URGE MY COLLEAGUES
TO VOTE NO ON TODAY'S RULE AND
THE UPSIDE LYING BILL THAT MAY
BE THE MOST EFWREDGES THAT
COMES TO THE FLOOR THIS YEAR.
I RESERVE THE PLANS OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLELADY RESERVES THE BALANCE
OF HER TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.
I YIELD THREE MINUTES TO MY
COLLEAGUE, DR. GINGREY OF
GEORGIA.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
I RISE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL AND THE
UNDERLYING BILL.
THE NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR
ABORTION ACT.
I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND OUR
COLLEAGUE FROM NEW JERSEY,
CHRIS SMITH, FOR HIS LEADERSHIP
ON THIS LEGISLATION AND HIS
STEADFAST PRO LIFE STANCE
THROUGHOUT HIS TENURE IN
CONGRESS.
AS A PRACTICING OB/GYN
PHYSICIAN FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS,
SACRED.
THE ISSUE OF ABORTION IS
PERSONAL FOR ME AS IT IS FOR
MANY ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND
MEMBERS OF THIS BODY.
HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT WHY WE ARE
ON THE HOUSE FLOOR TODAY
CONSIDERING THIS LEGISLATION.
INSTEAD, WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER
ONE SIMPLE QUESTION.
SHOULD AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS BE
USED TO FUND ABORTIONS?
WHEN AN ELECTIVE CHOICE CAN
DECIDE LIFE AND DEATH, SHOULD
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BE
ALLOWED TO USE TAX DOLLARS TO
PAY FOR THAT CHOICE?
MADAM SPEAKER, H.R. 3 IS A BILL
THAT SEEMS -- SEEKS TO SET
RIGHT WHAT THE LAST CONGRESS
GOT WRONG TO ENSURE THAT
ABORTIONS ARE NOT FUNDED BY
TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
AT ITS VERY BASE LEVEL, H R. 3
SIMPLY CODIFIES THE HYDE
AMENDMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN
ENACTED IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER
AS AN APPROPRIATION RIDER SINCE
FISCAL YEAR 1976.
THROUGH THIS LEGISLATION TODAY,
WE WILL MAKE PERMANENT THE
PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING
FOR ABORTIONS, THEREBY
ELIMINATING THE INHERENT
VULNERABILITY THAT RIDERS LIKE
THE HYDE AMENDMENT FACE AS PART
OF THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION
PROCESS.
FURTHERMORE, H.R. 3 CODIFIES
THE HYDE-WELDON CONSCIENCE
CLAUSE THAT'S PROTECTED HEALTH
CARE PROVIDERS FROM
DISCRIMINATION BY STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR SIMPLY
REFUSING TO PROVIDE, TO PAY
FOR, OR EVEN REFER FOR
ABORTION.
SO ADDITIONALLY H.R. 3 WILL
ALLOW THOSE HEALTH CARE
PROVIDERS WHO CHOOSE NOT TO
PERFORM ABORTIONS LEGAL
RECOURSE IF THEY FACE OVERT
DO.
MADAM SPEAKER, H.R. 3 ALSO
PREVENTS FEDERAL FUNDS BEING
USED FOR TAX CREDITS THAT
SUBSIDIZE HEALTH INSURANCE
COVERAGE, THAT INCLUDES
ELECTIVE ABORTIONS THROUGH THE
PATIENT PROTECTION AND
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT SO-CALLED
OBAMACARE.
ONE OF THE MANY PROBLEMS WITH
THIS LAW, OBAMACARE, IS THAT
THERE'S NO STATUTORY LANGUAGE
PROHIBITING PREMIUM ASSISTANCE
FROM BEING USED FOR ABORTIONS
DESPITE MANY EFFORTS OF HOUSE
AND SENATE REPUBLICANS DURING
THE LAST CONGRESS.
H.R. 3 PROVIDES THE ASSURANCE
THAT OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS WILL
NOT BE USED IN ANY FORM OF
FEDERAL SUBSIDIES FOR ABORTION
COVERAGE.
SO MADAM SPEAKER, AS A FATHER
AND AN OB/GYN PHYSICIAN, WHO
HAS DELIVERED OVER 5,000
BABIES, I WILL BE VOTING TO
ENSURE THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT USE
TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR ANY
ELECTIVE ABORTION.
I ASK ALL MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT THIS RULE AS WELL AS
THE UNDERLYING BILL H.R. 3.
WITH THAT, MADAM SPEAKER, I
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME AND I THANK THE GENTLEMAN
FOR YIELDING.
THE
GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
YIELD TWO MINUTES TO THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM CALIFORNIA,
MRS. DAVIS.
THE
GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED FOR
TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU.
MADAM SPEAKER, I RISE IN
VEHEMENT OPPOSITION TO THIS
RULE AND DANGEROUS LEGISLATION.
THE NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR
ABORTION ACT.
THIS BILL BELIES ITS TRUE
INTENT, TO GO FAR BEYOND
CURRENT LAW AND COMPRELF --
COMPREHENSIVELY CURTAIL WOMEN'S
HEALTH CARE.
THIS BILL ISN'T ABOUT TAXPAYER
FUNDING FOR ABORTION, IT IS A
COMPREHENSIVE ATTACK ON WOMEN'S
LIVES.
WE HEAR ALL THE TIME, WE HEAR
THAT PEOPLE WANT GOVERNMENT OUT
OF THEIR LIVES, OUT OF THEIR
BUSINESS.
THERE IS NOTHING, THERE IS
NOTHING MORE INVASIVE THAN
GOVERNMENT GETTING IN BETWEEN
FAMILIES AND THEIR DOCTORS WHEN
MAKING THIS DIFFICULT DECISION.
SO THIS BILL WON'T SAVE
TAXPAYER DOLLARS OR CREATE
WOMEN'S HEALTH.
AND IT WILL HURT SMALL
BUSINESSES BY PENALIZING THEM
FOR OFFERING THEIR EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE PLANS THAT COVER A
FULL RANGE OF WOMEN'S HEALTH
THIS IS A SLAP IN THE FACE OF
SMALL BUSINESSES THAT ARE
TRYING, THAT ARE TRYING TO TAKE
CARE OF THEIR COMPANIES, THEIR
EMPLOYEES, AND THEIR OWN
FAMILIES.
IT IS ALSO A SLAP IN THE FACE
TO ANY FAMILY THAT HAS TO MAKE
THE DIFFICULT DECISION TO SEEK
ABORTION CARE.
AS A DAUGHTER AND WIFE OF
PHYSICIANS, I AM SHOCKED THAT
WE WOULD SO QUICKLY DISMISS THE
JUDGMENT OF OUR COUNTRY'S
MEDICAL PERSONNEL AND FAMILIES
IN MAKING THE BEST DECISION TO
PRESERVE THE HEALTH AND LIVES
OF THEIR LOVED ONES.
WE ARE WASTING TIME ON DIVISIVE
ISSUES WHILE DENYING THE REAL
IMPLICATIONS THIS WILL HAVE ON
OUR FAMILIES AND ECONOMY.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO JOIN ME
IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
YIELD TWO MINUTES TO MY
COLLEAGUE, MR. FORTENBERRY,
FROM NEBRASKA.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEBRASKA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
MADAM SPEAKER.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR THE
TIME.
MADAM SPEAKER, AMERICANS
DESERVE TO KNOW HOW THE
GOVERNMENT SPENDS THEIR MONEY
AND THEY ARE RIGHT TO REFUSE
THE USE OF TAX DOLLARS FOR
HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL
ACTIVITIES, IN THIS CASE
ABORTION.
LET ME FIRST MAKE MY OWN
POSITION CLEAR.
I'M PRO-LIFE AND I BELIEVE THAT
WOMEN DESERVE BETTER THAN
ABORTION.
BUT CERTAINLY WE CAN ALL AGREE
THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SHOULD
NOT TAKE TAX DOLLARS FROM
HARDWORKING AMERICANS TO FUND
I BELIEVE IT'S TIME WE LOOK AT
THE REALITY OF ABORTION, BE
HONEST, AND SEE THE CHOICE FOR
WHAT IT IS.
IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT
THE EARLY FEMINIST MOVEMENT
RECOGNIZED THAT ABORTION IS A
FUNDAMENTAL INJUSTICE.
ABORTION HARMS WOMEN.
IT TAKES THE LIVES OF CHILDREN
AND IT ALLOWS A MAN TO ESCAPE
HIS RESPONSIBILITY.
ABORTION AND THE ABORTION
INDUSTRY SO OFTEN PROFITS FROM
ALL OF THIS PAIN.
ABORTION IS ALSO SO OFTEN THE
RESULT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OR
PHYSICAL COERCION OR EVEN
EMOTIONAL OR PHYSICAL
ABANDONMENT.
AND THIS IS A TRAGIC SOCIAL
PARADIGM THAT HAS CAUSED A DEEP
WOUND IN THE SOUL OF OUR
COUNTRY.
NO MATTER HOW DIFFICULT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, MADAM SPEAKER, I
BELIEVE WE CAN AND MUST DO
BETTER AS A SOCIETY AND AT A
MINIMUM TAXPAYER DOLLARS SHOULD
NOT BE INVOLVED.
THIS ISSUE HAS MANIFESTED
ITSELF AGAIN MOST INTENSELY
DURING THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE.
UNLESS A PROHIBITION IS
ENACTED, TAXPAYERS WILL FUND
ABORTION UNDER THE FRAMEWORK OF
THE NEW HEALTH CARE LAW.
MADAM SPEAKER, ABORTION IS NOT
HEALTH CARE.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
RECENTLY VOTED TO STOP THE USE
OF TAXPAYER FUNDS FOR ABORTIONS
IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
SO FOR DECADES CONGRESS HAS
PROSCRIBED FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
ABORTION IN THIS PIECEMEAL
FASHION THROUGH THE HYDE
AMENDMENT AND OTHER SIMILAR
PROVISIONS IN ANNUAL
APPROPRIATIONS.
IT IS TIME TO SETTLE THIS ONCE
AND FOR ALL.
WISH.
THIS BILL WILL PROVIDE A
COMPREHENSIVE PROHIBITION ON
THE USE OF FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS
TO FUND THE SOCIALLY DIVISIVE
ISSUE OF ABORTION.
IT'S TIME WE STOP.
THANK YOU.
THE
GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK.
LET ME YIELD
MYSELF 30 SECONDS JUST TO --
H.R. 3 IS ACTUALLY DANGEROUS
FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH.
BY REFUSING TO PROVIDE ANY
EXCEPTIONS TO WOMEN FACING
SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITIONS,
CANCER, HEART, WHATEVER THAT
MAY BE, YOU ARE FORCING WOMEN
TO CHOOSE TO RISK THEIR HOUSE
OR BANKRUPTCY.
I THINK THAT'S MORALLY
UNACCEPTABLE.
H.R. 3, A WOMAN FACING CANCER
WHO NEEDS TO TERMINATE A
PREGNANCY TO LIVE MIGHT HAVE TO
GO INTO DEBT OVER THE $10,000
THAT LEGAL AND NECESSARY
PROCEDURE COULD COST.
DESPITE HAVING BOTH HEALTH
INSURANCE AND TAX DEFERRED
SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, THIS BILL
WOULD PREVENT HER FROM HAVING
I'M PLEASED TO YIELD 1 1/2
MINUTES TO THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM
CAPPS.
THE
GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR 1 1/2 MINUTES.
I THANK MY
COLLEAGUE FOR YIELDING.
MADAM SPEAKER, I RISE IN STRONG
OP -- OPPOSITION TO THIS RULE
AND UNDERLYING LEGISLATION.
A MERE TWO WEEKS AGO THE
REPUBLICAN MAJORITY BROUGHT US
TO THE BRINK OF GOVERNMENT
SHUTDOWN OVER THEIR DISAPPROVAL
OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD.
INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING OUR
ECONOMIC CHALLENGES WITH
HOUSING AND CREATING JOBS, WE
ARE HERE AGAIN TODAY WITNESSING
THE REPUBLICANS' OBSESSION WITH
REOPENING THE CULTURE WARS.
H.R. 3 REPRESENTS THE MOST
EGREGIOUS ATTACK ON
YEARS.
RIGHTS THAT ARE PROTECTED BY
THE SUPREME COURT DECISION.
H.R. 3 OOSES -- USES THE TAX
CODE TO EFFECTIVELY DENY ACCESS
TO INSURANCE THAT INCLUDES
ABORTION CARE COVERAGE NO
MATTER HOW IT IS PAID FOR.
WHAT IT DOESN'T DO IS TRUST OUR
NATION'S WOMEN, TRUST OUR
NATION'S FAMILIES, THEIR
DOCTORS, THEIR CLERGY, AND
TRUST SMALL BUSINESSES TO MAKE
THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE CHOICES
FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES.
THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, DESPITE THE
RHETORIC COMING FROM THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE AISLE, THE BILL IS
NOT ABOUT FUNDING.
IT'S ABOUT USING OUR LAWS AND
OUR TAX CODE TO INFRINGE UPON
THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN.
THE PROTECTED RIGHTS OF WOMEN
AND FAMILIES ACROSS THIS
NATION.
MADAM SPEAKER, IT IS TIME THAT
THIS CONGRESS PLACE ITS TRUST
IN OUR NATION'S WOMEN, ITS
FAMILIES, AND SMALL BUSINESSES
TO MAKE THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE
I YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
YIELD FIVE MINUTES TO MY
COLLEAGUE FROM NEW JERSEY, THE
AUTHOR OF H.R. 3, MR. SMITH.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I THANK YOU FOR HIS
LEADERSHIP.
MADAM SPEAKER, AMERICA HAS
CHANGED AND TODAY IS MORE
PRO-LIFE THAN EVER.
BY EVER INCREASING MAJORITIES,
ESPECIALLY AMONG OUR YOUNG
PEOPLE, THE MEGATREND IS TO
PROTECT THE CHILD IN THE WOMB
FROM THE INSIDIOUS VIOLENCE OF
ABORTION AND PROTECT WOMEN FROM
THE TRAUMA OFTEN LIFELONG
EMOTIONAL HARM FROM PROCURING
AN ABORTION.
THIS PARADIGM SHIFT REFLECTED
IN ALL THE MAJOR POLLS IS A
DIRECT RESULT OF PRO-LIFE
EDUCATION, PREGNANCY CARE
CENTERS, PRO-LIFE LAWS,
INCLUDING FUNDING BANS,
INFORMED CONSENT.
THE MOLDING OF CONSCIOUSNESS BY
THE FAITH-BASED COMMUNITY AND
ADVANCES IN ULTRASOUND THAT
HAVE SHATTERED THE PERNICIOUS
PRO-ABORTION MYTH THAT THE BABY
IN THE WOMB ISN'T A HUMAN
PERSON OR ALIVE OR OF VALUE.
EVEN PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S
ABORTION CLINIC DIRECTOR WAS
SHOCKED INTO HER NEW PRO-LIFE
VIEW BY WITNESSING AN
ULTRASOUND GUIDED ABORTION OF A
13-WEEK-OLD BABY WHO WAS
DISMEMBERED AND PULVERIZED IN
REAL TIME RIGHT BEFORE HER EYES
AT THAT TEXAS CLINIC.
BUT PERHAPS THE GREATEST REASON
FOR THE NEW SHIFT IN PUBLIC
OPINION IN FAVOR OF LIFE IS THE
GROWING NUMBER OF
EXTRAORDINARILY BRAVE, POST
ABORTIVE WOMEN WHO DEEPLY
REGRET THEIR ABORTION AND TODAY
ARE SILENT NO MORE.
ONE POST-ABORTIVE WOMAN TOLD A
GROUP OUTSIDE THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT, I HEARD HER SAY IT, AS
SHE LAY ON THE OPERATING TABLE
THE ABORTIONIST LAUGHED AS HE
INSERTED A SHARP KNIFE INTO HER
WOMB AND SAID, OH, IT'S TRYING
TO GET AWAY.
PARTIALLY SEDATED THE WOMAN
IMMEDIATELY PLEADED WITH THE
NURSE AND DOCTOR TO STOP THE
CHILD.
THEY TOLD HER TO SHUT UP.
TODAY SHE IS DEEPLY WOUNDED BY
THAT CRUEL ASSAULT, THAT LEGAL
ASSAULT ON HER BABY.
ANOTHER WOMAN HAS HAD TWO
ABORTIONS.
TODAY SHE'S JOINED THE GROLLING
COALITION OF WOMEN WHO DEEPLY
REGRET THEIR ABORTION OUT OF
DEEP PERSONAL PAIN AND
COMPASSION FOR OTHERS, THEY
CHALLENGE US TO RESPECT,
PROTECT, BOTH MOTHER AND CHILD.
THE WOMEN OF SILENT NO MORE
GIVE POST-ABORTIVE WOMEN A SAFE
PLACE TO GRIEVE AND ROAD MAP TO
RECONCILIATION.
AND TO SOCIETY AT LARGE AND
ESPECIALLY TO CONGRESS, THESE
BRAVE WOMEN COMPEL US TO
RETHINK AND TO REASSESS THE
ABORTION CULTURE.
REFLECTING ON HER FAMOUS
UNCLE'S SPEECH, I HAVE A
SPEECH, DR. KING ASKED US HOW
ACCOUNT DREAM SURVIVE IF WE
*** THE CHILDREN?
MADAM SPEAKER, THERE IS NO
DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT ENDING
PUBLIC FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS
SAVES LIVES.
EVEN THE PRO-ABORTION
INSTITUTION IN JUNE OF 2009 IN
A REPORT SAID, APPROXIMATELY
1/4 OF WOMEN WHO HAVE HAD --
WOULD HAVE HAD MEDICAID FUNDED
ABORTIONS IF THE HYDE AMENDMENT
DIDN'T EXIST INSTEAD GIVE BIRTH
WHEN THIS FUNDING IS
UNAVAILABLE.
I VIVIDLY REMEMBER THE LATE
CONGRESSMAN HENRY HYDE BEING
MOVED TO TEARS WHEN HE LEARNED
THAT THE HYDE AMENDMENT HAD
LIKELY SAVED THE LIVES OF MORE
THAN A MILLION CHILDREN WHO
TODAY ARE PERHAPS IN SCHOOL AND
GETTING READY FOR SUMMER
VACATION, PERHAPS PLAYING
SPORTS, OR IF THEY ARE IN THEIR
20'S OR 30'S, BUILDING THEIR
OWN FAMILIES.
H.R. 3, THE NO TAXPAYER FUNDING
FOR ABORTION ACT, COMPETITIVELY
ENSURES THAT ALL PROGRAMS --
COMPETITIVELY --
COMPREHENSIVELY ENSURES THAT
ALL PROGRAMS DO NOT SUBSIDIZE
THE KILLING OF BABIES EXCEPT IN
THE RARE CASES OF ***, ***,
AND LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
IT ENDS THE CURRENT I.R.S.
POLICY ALLOWING TAX FAVORED
TREATMENT FOR ABORTIONS UNDER
ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS, H.S.A.'S,
M.S.A.'S AND IT ENDS THE USE OF
TAX CREDITS UNDER OBAMACARE TO
PURCHASE INSURANCE PLANS THAT
INCLUDE ABORTIONS EXCEPT IN
CASES OF ***, ***, OR LIFE
OF THE MOTHER.
TODAY WE SEEK TO END TAXPAYER
COMPLICITY IN ABORTION
VIOLENCE.
NO TAXPAYER SHOULD BE COERCED
TO PAY, SUBSIDIZE, OR
FACILITATE THE DISMEMBERMENT,
CHEMICAL POISONING, THE
STARVATION, REMEMBER THAT'S HOW
RU-46 WORKS, IT FIRST STARVE
VES THE BABY TO DEATH AND THE
OTHER CHEMICAL BRINGS ON THE
DELIVERY OF A DEAD BABY, OR THE
SUCTIONONNING TO DEATH OF A
CHILD.
REGARDING CONSCIENCE RIGHTS,
H.R. 3 PROTECTS PRO-LIFE HEALTH
CARE ENTITIES FROM
DISCRIMINATION BY STATE, LOCAL,
AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS AND
EMPOWERS THE COURTS WITH THE
AUTHORITY TO PREVENT AND
REDRESS ACTUAL OR THREATENED
VIOLATIONS OF CONSCIENCE.
THE NEED FOR THIS PROTECTION IS
GREAT.
ACCORDING TO THE ALLIANCE OF
CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE WHICH
REPRESENTS CALIFORNIA'S
CATHOLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS AND
HOSPITALS, QUOTE, CALIFORNIA'S
CATHOLIC HOSPITALS OPERATE IN A
PUBLIC POLICY ENVIRONMENT THAT
REGULARLY CHALLENGES THE
CONCEPT OF PROTECTIONS BY
ATTEMPTING TO COERCE THEM AND
OTHER HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS TO
PERFORM AND BE COMPLICIT OR PAY
FOR ABORTIONS.
I URGE MEMBERS TO SUPPORT THIS
LEGISLATION, IT IS BACKED BY
228 CO-SPONSORS.
TIME.
THE
GENTLELADY FROM NEW YORK.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
WANT TO YIELD MYSELF 15 SECONDS
TO PUT IN THE -- THE
RESTORATION OF FEDERAL MEDICAID
COVERAGE WOULD RESULT IN A
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE
NATIONWIDE.
IT'S NOT SUPPORTED BY RESEARCH.
AND EXTRAPOLATING FROM GUKE
MACKER'S MEDICAID FINDINGS WILL
SERVE THAT COVERAGE IN THE
PRIVATE INSURANCE MARKET IS
STRONGLY LINKED TO ABORTION
INCIDENTS IS ENTIRELY
ILLEGITIMATE.
I YIELD TWO MINUTES TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VERMONT, MR.
WELCH.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VERMONT IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
GENTLELADY.
HENRY HYDE WAS ONE OF THE
OUTSTANDING MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE
REPRESENTATIVES.
HE BELIEVED INTENTLY IN A
PRO-LIFE POSITION.
AND THE REMARKS THAT COLLEAGUES
WHO SUPPORTED THIS LEGISLATION
ARE ONES THAT I THINK MR. HYDE
WOULD APPROVE OF.
BUT HE WAS ALSO A MASTER
LEGISLATOR AND HE UNDERSTOOD
THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE A
DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW THAN HE
HAS.
AND ON THE MATTER OF ABORTION,
SOMETHING THAT IS A MATTER OF
FAITH FOR MANY PEOPLE, A MATTER
OF CONSCIENCE FOR EVERYONE,
THERE ARE DIFFERENT POINTS OF
VIEW.
THE EXCELLENT JOB THAT MR. HYDE
DID WAS TO TAKE TAXPAYER,
DIRECT TAXPAYER FUNDING OUT OF
THE EQUATION.
IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE
ABORTIONS, IT WAS NOT GOING TO
BE PAID FOR BY TAXPAYER
DOLLARS.
THIS AMENDMENT TAKES IT A
RADICAL STEP FURTHER.
WHAT IT DOES, IT SAYS IF THERE
IS ANY TAX CREDIT THAT IS PART
OF A HEALTH CARE PLAN, THEN
THIS LEGISLATION WOULD PROHIBIT
A SMALL BUSINESS FROM OFFERING
WORKERS.
JUST THINK ABOUT THE ENORMOUS
BURDEN THAT IS BEING PLACED ON
HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF
SMALL BUSINESSES IN VER MONTH.
YIELD.
THANK YOU.
HUNDREDS, MILLIONS OF SMALL
BUSINESSES IN THIS COUNTRY.
EVERY ONE OF THOSE BUSINESSES
WHERE IT OFFERS A COMPREHENSIVE
HEALTH CARE PLAN TO THEIR
EMPLOYEES THAT MAY INCLUDE
ABORTION SERVICES STUDLY HAS TO
UNRAVEL THOSE PLANS AND DENY
THAT COVERAGE TO ITS WORKERS.
SO WHAT WE HAVE IS AN ACTION BY
THE SPONSORS OF THIS
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD IMPOSE
ITS WILL, FAR BEYOND WHAT MR.
HYDE EVER DID OR SOUGHT TO DO,
ON EVERY SMALL BUSINESS IN THIS
COUNTRY.
BY THE WAY, THERE'S ANOTHER
ISSUE HERE, A PRECEDENT.
IF NOW WE ARE STARTING TO
INTERFERE WITH THE USE OF TAX
CREDITS, DOES THIS MEAN THE
NEXT TARGET IS WHAT KIND OF
HOME YOU BUY IF YOU ARE GOING
TO GET USE OF A TAXPAYER
DEDUCTION?
DOES IT MEAN THAT --
ANOTHER MINUTE.
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
I THANK THE
GENTLELADY.
DOES IT MEAN THAT IF YOU'RE
DOING RESEARCH ON BIOTECHNOLOGY
THAT THE TAX CREDIT IS GOING TO
BE RESTRICTED AND DICTATED BY A
MAJORITY WHO -- WHOEVER IT
REPRESENTATIVES?
THE BASIC QUESTION FOR THIS
CONGRESS IS WHETHER WE ARE
GOING TO ALLOW THE STATUS QUO
TO EXIST THROUGH THE HYDE
AMENDMENT WHERE PEOPLE CAN
EXERCISE THEIR CONSCIENCE ON
THIS IMPORTANT QUESTION, OR ARE
WE GOING TO HAVE A DICTATION
FROM THIS CONGRESS THAT
ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY
PROHIBITS PEOPLE FROM MAKING
THAT OWN CHOICE THEM SELVES?
THE MUTUAL RESPECT THAT MR.
HYDE UNDERSTOOD, WE NEEDED IN
THIS COUNTRY IS REALLY GOING TO
BE FRAYED WITH THIS
LEGISLATION.
SO I WOULD URGE MEMBERS TO VOTE
AGAINST THIS LEGISLATION.
THAT'S OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE
FACT THAT THERE ARE SHARPLY
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