Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, according to a report issued by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the number of economically significant rules in the pipeline, which are those that could cost $100 million or more annually, has increased by more than 137 percent over the past decade. Section 12 of my bill responds to such concerns by requiring Federal agencies to conduct a retrospective analysis of an existing Federal regulation at the request of a committee chairman or ranking minority member. The retrospective analysis submitted to the requesting member and to Congress is to include: One, a copy of the Federal regulation; Two, the continued need for the Federal regulation; Three, the nature of comments or complaints received concerning the Federal regulation; Four, the extent to which the mandate may duplicate another Federal regulation; Five, the degree to which technology or economic conditions have changed in the area affecting the Federal regulation; Six, an analysis of the retrospective costs and benefits of the Federal regulation that considers studies done outside the government; and Seven, the history of legal challenges to the Federal regulation. Since the duty to promote public accountability and transparency in Federal regulatory policy is endless, this provision builds on the strengths of UMRA by helping ensure ongoing compliance with legislative intent. This kind of ongoing monitoring, identified as a priority by section 5 of Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton, and by section 6 of Executive Order 13563, issued by President Obama, is critical for adapting to changing circumstances that shaped initial UMRA cost estimates. This helps ensure a fresh look at regulations to make certain they remain consistent with their initial purpose and have not become overly burdensome, outdated, or unnecessary. This is just one of many bipartisan initiatives contained in my bill that further underscores the need for my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, section 3 of my bill has received praise from State and local government advocacy groups as it would allow a committee chairman or ranking member to request that the Congressional Budget Office perform an assessment comparing the authorized level of funding in a bill or resolution to the prospective costs of carrying out any changes to a condition of Federal assistance being imposed on any respective participating State, local or tribal government. The purpose of this provision is to highlight costs the Federal Government is passing along to State and local governments that would otherwise remain hidden but borne by taxpayers regardless of which governmental entity is taxing them. CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin's statement before the Committee on Government Reform on March 8, 2005, speaks further to this issue, saying: According to UMRA, the conditions attached to most forms of Federal aid, including most grant programs, are not mandates. Yet complying with such conditions can sometimes be burdensome. In particular, States consider new conditions on existing grant programs to be duties not unlike mandates. Two often-cited examples of such conditions are the requirements for receiving Federal funding under the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Those laws require school districts to undertake many activities, including, respectively, designing and implementing Statewide achievement tests and preparing individualized education plans for disabled children, but only if they wish to receive certain Federal education grant funds. In other words, these mandates escape UMRA's scrutiny because current law doesn't define this type of cost shifting as a ``mandate.'' My bill closes this loophole. The landmark Supreme Court decision, the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, hinged, in part, on this very issue. Although the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion was not technically considered a ``mandate'' under UMRA, it required States to dramatically expand the program or risk losing all funding. For this reason, the Supreme Court ultimately deemed this provision unconstitutional. Justice Roberts wrote that this portion of the Affordable Care Act violated the Constitution because: Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States were given no such choice in this case. They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid or risk losing all Medicaid funding. In this way, the Affordable Care Act provides a contemporary, salient case study in how important it is for legislators and the public to have access to critical information concerning the costs of Federal decrees. My bill will put this important information in the hands of Congress and the American people. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. With that, I would be prepared to close if the gentleman from Florida is prepared, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I really respect and appreciate my colleague from Florida, but there is nothing in this bill that would stop the development of rules and regulations by the executive branch, absolutely nothing. All we want to do is make sure that the cost of those rules and regulations is totally transparent. Also, I appreciate my colleague's saying that we shouldn't be passing bumper sticker bills. We joked about this bill. The title for it, if you abbreviate it, is ``UMITA.'' That anagram hardly comes trippingly off the tongue, and it really wouldn't make much of a bumper sticker for us. He also indicates that this bill is going to be dead on arrival in the Senate, so we should just give our attention to something else. I know my colleague knows this: the House of Representatives is mentioned very first in the Constitution. I believe the Founders intended for us to do our job and to do it well here. We shouldn't be thinking ``it is my way or the highway.'' This is a bill that has been cosponsored by Democrats, and I believe it will get a lot of Democrat votes. The logic from my colleague is that because this House is predominantly Republican that we should at the outset just acquiesce to the Democrat- led Senate or do nothing at all, but that is not how the legislative process works. There has to be a give and take. I believe the House will pass this legislation tomorrow, and if the Senate wants to change it and send it back, fine--we will work it out-- because that is our job, and that is the way it works, but I reject the notion that the Senate will not act on this bill. As I said, it is not a Republican bill; it is a bipartisan bill. It has Republican and Democrat cosponsors. My conversation with our Senate colleagues suggests this bill could clear the Senate and be signed into law by the President--this President. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that, last year, the President signed 76 laws--64 of those came from the House of Representatives and only 12 from the Senate, if I am accurate. If not, I will correct the Record. It is wrong for us to say we shouldn't be passing bills in the House because anything sponsored by a Republican will go nowhere in the Senate since the Democrats control it, because the evidence from last year, obviously, disproves that. Mr. Speaker, since the 1995 passage of UMRA, experts across the political spectrum agree that the bill has led to the generation of important information about the potential impacts of mandates proposed in legislation and regulations. However, since its inception, there have been very few revisions to the law while various exclusions and exceptions have cropped up, creating loopholes limiting the act's coverage. H.R. 899 builds on the success of UMRA by drawing upon executive orders enacted by the last two Democrat Presidents to close loopholes, streamline the cost-reporting process, and clarify the responsibilities of those in charge with complying with these requirements. Independent regulatory agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal Communications Commission are currently exempted from UMRA. H.R. 899 will require even these independent regulatory agencies to analyze the costs of their proposed mandates before they are imposed on the public. H.R. 899 would also treat ``changes to conditions of grant aid'' as mandates, triggering an UMRA cost analysis. Legislation or regulations that force States or localities to make changes in order to qualify for Federal grant aid would no longer be exempt from scrutiny. H.R. 899 will guarantee the public always has the opportunity to weigh in on regulations. Whereas UMRA only triggered cost analyses for regulations that were publicly announced through a ``notice of proposed rulemaking,'' this bill will require all regulations, whether a notice of proposed rulemaking was issued or not, to complete cost analyses. H.R. 899 will also equip Congress and the American people with better tools to determine the true cost of regulations. Analyses required by H.R. 899 will have to factor in real-world consequences, such as lost business profits, costs passed on to consumers, and changed behavior costs when considering the bottom line impact of Federal mandates. Finally, H.R. 899 will ensure government is held accountable for following these rules. If the requirements set forth by UMRA and UMITA are not met, a judicial stay may be placed upon regulations. This legislation is purely about good government. It is about being open and honest about the cost of regulations. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleague on the other side of the aisle. I frankly don't think there is much more serious legislation around here than this piece, as I said earlier. UMITA doesn't exactly come trippingly off the tongue, and it isn't the most scintillating legislation out there, but it has great bipartisan support, which is what my colleague said we should be doing. So I am curious about his going off talking about a lot of other things other than this. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that multiple provisions in my bill, including sections 8 and 9, would codify general principles of good government embodied in President Clinton's Executive Order 12866 and President Obama's Executive Order 13563. Section 8 closes a blatant, often exploited loophole inconsistent with legislative intent and the spirit of the law. Again, I think this legislation is doing exactly what the Congress should be doing, and that is sticking with legislative intent and making sure that we are looking after the fact that the laws we pass are adhered to. Since title II of UMRA says that agencies must develop a written statement describing the effects of their regulations on State, local, and tribal governments, as well as the private sector, ``unless otherwise prohibited by law,'' some agencies have concluded that general statutory language limiting the consideration of economic costs in setting regulations ``prohibits'' them from preparing a written statement evaluating the non-cost elements. Reasserting legislative intent, this section of my bill prevents this loophole from being exploited for purposes of ignoring UMRA requirements by clarifying that agencies must conduct UMRA analysis unless a law ``expressly'' prohibits them from doing so. This simple wording change makes a world of difference by clarifying that agencies must conduct UMRA analyses unless a law ``expressly'' prohibits the disclosure. Another way UMRA's cost disclosure requirements have been exploited by ambitious rulemakers is by deeming a proposal an emergency and thereby forgoing the notice of proposed rulemaking, or NPRM, process, which is the avenue through which the public weighs in on proposed regulation. Without compromising the ability to issue mandates in emergency scenarios, section 9 of the underlining bill removes the perverse incentive for agencies to forego NPRMs by requiring them to fulfill UMRA cost disclosure requirements within 6 months of issuing the urgent decree. Modest bipartisan provisions such as these highlight additional reasons for my colleague to support the rule and underlying bill. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, but I am prepared to close if the gentleman from Florida is prepared.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform filed its report (H. Rept. 113-352, Part 1) to accompany H.R. 899 on February 14, 2014, it included an exchange of letters between the Chairman of the Committee on Rules and the Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The letter from Chairman Sessions was inadvertently dated February 11, 2013 and was intended to be dated February 11, 2014. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 492 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida 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. 1010) to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage. 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 and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. 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. 1010.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 492 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Resolution 492 provides for a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. Mr. Speaker, every year, bureaucrats in Washington impose thousands of regulatory mandates on local governments and small businesses. Those mandates can be costly, stretching city and State budgets and making it harder for American businesses to hire. The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, H.R. 899, will ensure that the people who write these regulations in Washington know exactly what they are asking the American people to pay and whether the costs of compliance might make it harder for family businesses to meet payroll and stay afloat. H.R. 899 will force Washington to think more carefully about regulatory costs before it passes them on to Americans. This bill is about transparency and accountability, and it is something Democrats and Republicans can all support. In 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, UMRA, legislation designed to prevent the Federal Government from imposing unfunded mandates onto State and local governments or private businesses without policymakers or the public knowing the costs of such policies. UMRA's main objective was to force the Federal Government to estimate how much unfunded mandates would cost local governments and businesses and rein in out-of-control mandates. UMRA ensured public awareness of the crushing financial burden of Federal mandates on employers and State and local governments. However, UMRA has not been amended since 1995, and some subtle changes are needed to preserve and improve on the act's initial purpose. UMRA was a good bill, but over time, some shortcomings became apparent such that the Clinton and, later, Obama administrations had written executive orders to fix the loopholes within it. As many of my colleagues can confirm, it takes a lot of creativity and hard work to pass legislation as a member of a minority party. When Democrats gained control of Congress back in 2007, I sat down with my staff to think about legislative ideas that could gain sufficient bipartisan support to clear a Democrat Congress. This bill is the result of those efforts. H.R. 899 has bipartisan DNA. It codifies those administrative fixes championed by Presidents Clinton and Obama and promotes good government accountability and transparency. As a testament to this fact, the bill is cosponsored by three of my Democrat colleagues here in the House: Representatives Mike McIntyre, Collin Peterson, and Loretta Sanchez. I owe them a debt of gratitude for their efforts in promoting this commonsense bill. I am especially grateful to Representative James Lankford, a Republican cosponsor of this bill, who has worked tirelessly to promote its passage here in the House. We wouldn't be here today without his efforts. A common refrain in this business is that nobody wants to see how the sausage is made, meaning that the process of drafting and passing legislation is so ugly that it would repulse people. In this case, I disagree. I am extremely proud of this bill and extremely proud of the process by which it has been advanced in the House. It has been a pleasure to work with colleagues from both sides of the aisle on this measure, and I appreciate their support and counsel. The Unfunded Mandates Reform and Transparency Act of 1995 was a model for bipartisanship, and my hope is that my bill leaves a similar legacy. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Florida. Mr. Speaker, as proud as I am of this legislation, I realize that its passage on Friday will not be front-page news. I understand that ``Bipartisan Group of Lawmakers Band Together to Close Technical Loopholes in UMRA'' isn't exactly a riveting headline, but what we are doing here is important. In Congress, we often focus our energy and attention on those issues that are most divisive and controversial. There are real substantive disagreements between the two parties and among the American people. But Congress must do the hard things, and every now and then we get an opportunity to do something easy. This should be easy. The reforms in this bill are ``low hanging fruit.'' These are modest reforms supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. Some of these changes merely codify executive orders issued by the last two Democrat Presidents. Some of my colleagues have suggestions for improvement and have offered amendments to this bill. Great. I welcome their suggestions. Those amendments will be discussed here tomorrow in an open and transparent process. In fact, Mr. Speaker, every Democrat amendment that was submitted has been included in this rule. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this sensible legislation that will enhance transparency, accountability, and awareness of Federal mandates. I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Gray Gaulding, a young man from Statesville, North Carolina. Mr. Gaulding recently piloted his NTS Motorsports Krispy Kreme/TruMoo Number 20 Chevrolet Impala to victory at Phoenix International Raceway, making him the youngest NASCAR K&N Pro Series winner ever. Gray is 15 years old. Gray began his racing career on dirt bikes at the age of three. Once he found his way onto four wheels, he won an incredible 17 of the first 27 races he competed in on the youth development level. He has since amassed numerous wins on Bandolero, Legend and Super Late Model racing circuits throughout the Southeast. I wish Gray Gaulding well as he chases the checkered flag and the championship in the NASCAR K&N Pro Series East this year. North Carolina's Fifth Congressional district is proud to be the home of this fine young man and I look forward to a bright future for this remarkable young racecar driver.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, since declaring its independence from the Soviet Union, Azerbaijan has been a reliable friend and valuable ally of the United States. For this reason, it seems appropriate for Congress to commemorate the victims of the Khojaly tragedy as the Azerbaijani people mark the anniversary of this event. Since the early 1990s, Azerbaijan has been involved in a conflict with its neighbor to the West, Armenia. The Khojaly tragedy was the single worst day in this conflict, resulting in hundreds of lives lost, families devastated, and the town destroyed. Given our deepening ties with Azerbaijan, it is important for Americans to remember this event. A cease-fire was negotiated in 1994, but the conflict remains unresolved. I remain confident a resolution will be found. The United States is serving as a co-chair to the Minsk Group, along with France and Russia. Together these three nations are working to facilitate a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The anniversary of this horrible tragedy is an appropriate time to honor the victims of these atrocities and reflect on the need for all parties to work together to bring a swift end to this conflict. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing with Azerbaijanis as they commemorate this tragedy.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, which will be considered by the House later this week. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this name doesn't come trippingly off the tongue, but it is an important piece of legislation. Every year, Federal agencies impose thousands of regulatory mandates on local governments and small businesses. Those mandates are often costly, stretching city and State budgets and making it harder for businesses in North Carolina and around the country to grow and add jobs. UMITA will force Washington to think much more carefully about regulatory costs before passing them on to small businesses and local governments. This bill will ensure that regulations are enacted only when the benefits to be gleaned by a rule outweigh the costs imposed by the rule. Ultimately, this bill is about transparency and accountability, something Democrats and Republicans can support with equal fervor. Mr. Speaker, I began the process of writing this legislation in 2007. Knowing that it takes a lot of creativity and hard work to pass legislation, I sat down with my staff to think about legislative ideas that could gain sufficient bipartisan support to be enacted. We started looking at the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which cleared a Republican Congress before being signed by President Clinton. UMRA was a model for bipartisan legislating, so we looked to it for ideas. The guiding principle of UMRA was that the American people would be better served by a government that regulates only on the basis of good information, including a cost-benefit analysis. UMRA was a good bill, but over time, shortcomings have become apparent. Multiple administrations over the past 19 years have attempted to fix loopholes in UMRA via executive actions. Additionally, independent regulatory agencies have become far more prevalent in the intervening years, so it is very important to make sure they are bound by the same transparency requirements as other regulatory bodies. To address these issues, we drafted the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. UMITA will codify these executive fixes and fix some currently unaddressed loopholes to make sure that Federal agencies are in compliance with the spirit of UMRA. Mr. Speaker, like UMRA, UMITA is bipartisan legislation. Three out of four cosponsors are Democrats. This bill has gained bipartisan support because it is purely about good government, fostering openness and honesty about the cost of regulations. Specifically, UMITA will require government's independent regulatory agencies to analyze the cost of their proposed mandates before they are imposed on the public; treat ``changes to conditions of grant aid'' as mandates, guarantee the public always has the opportunity to weigh in on regulations; and equip Congress and the American people with better tools to determine the true cost of regulations. Finally, H.R. 899 will ensure government is held accountable for following these rules. If the requirements set for by UMRA and UMITA are not met, a judicial stay may be placed upon regulations. UMITA is a bipartisan solution to a bipartisan problem: unaccountable Federal agencies damaging our economy with poorly considered regulations. I look forward to broad support from my colleagues from both sides of the aisle when it is considered on Friday.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Venezuelans who seek to return liberty, the rule of law, and peace to their beleaguered nation. Over a period of years, the corrupt Cuban-backed Maduro-Chavez government has systematically looted and oppressed the people it purports to serve. I received an email from a friend today who has spent significant time in Venezuela. He writes: Students, tired of the corruption, the crime, the killings, an economy spiraling out of control, a lack of free press, are peacefully demonstrating, per their constitutional right, against the government. The government, instead of protecting the students and others demonstrating, is attacking, arresting, and often killing them. Mr. Speaker, the death toll is growing; the list of political prisoners is growing. The repressive tactics of the Venezuelan Government cannot be ignored. I call on the administration to act and support Venezuelans who seek simply to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their countrymen.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Daimler Trucks North America for being named an Environmental Steward by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. This award, which goes to ``an organization that has demonstrated environmental leadership through its commitment to exemplary environmental performance beyond what is required by regulations,'' was given for its environmental performance at its Cleveland, N.C. plant, which builds Freightliner trucks. Only 16 facilities in North Carolina have achieved this recognition. Daimler Trucks was recognized for eliminating hazardous wastewater sludge and reducing energy usage by 43 percent since 2008. The board also cited the facility's elite status as one of the nation's few manufacturing plants to send ``zero waste'' to landfills and noted Daimler's ``commitment to continual improvement.'' Mr. Speaker, we are proud to have this great facility in North Carolina's fifth district and I thank Daimler Trucks North America for its exceptional environmental stewardship.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, recent CBO estimates predict that regulatory changes created by ObamaCare will remove 2.3 million Americans from the full-time workforce. The President has gone to great lengths to spin this as a positive development, saying job losses will come as a result of people voluntarily choosing to pursue interests other than full-time work. It is true that, all else being equal, individuals and families being able to make ends meet while working less is a cause for celebration. The problem is that all else is not equal. We have a social safety net that depends on robust economic growth and is already forecast to run perpetual deficits for decades to come. No one disputes that 2.2 million lost jobs will diminish economic growth. For as long as I have been in Congress, Republicans have been working to enact structural reforms to put our budget back in balance. Last week's CBO report makes those reforms even more urgent.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am going to say it again, this bill is not an attack on women or an attack on women's rights. I think it is wonderful that we had so many men here today speaking on behalf of the unborn. Life is the most fundamental of all rights, Madam Speaker. It is sacred and God-given. But millions of babies have been robbed of that right in this, the freest country in the world. This is a tragedy beyond words and a betrayal of what we, as a Nation, stand for. Before liberty, equality, free speech, freedom of conscience, and the pursuit of happiness and justice for all, there has to be life. And yet, for millions of aborted infants, many pain-capable and many discriminated against because of gender or disability, life is exactly what they have been denied. And an affront to life for some is an affront to life for every one of us. That is the message we want to get across today. One day, we hope it will be different. We hope life will cease to be valued on a sliding scale. We hope the era of elective abortions, ushered in by an unelected Court, would be closed and collectively deemed one of the darkest chapters in American history. But until that day, it remains a solemn duty for all of us to stand up for life. Regardless of the length of this journey, we will continue to speak for those who cannot. And we will continue to pray to the One who can change the hearts of those in desperation and those in power who equally hold the lives of the innocent in their hands. Madam Speaker, the commonsense measure before us restores an important longstanding bipartisan agreement that protects the unborn and prevents taxpayers from being forced to finance thousands of elective abortions. It reflects the will of the American people and is the product of what has historically been a bipartisan, bicameral consensus in Congress. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and H.R. 7.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the passage of H.R. 7 will be welcome news for the majority of Americans who do not want their tax dollars paying for the grisly business of abortion. This bill, which is cosponsored by 165 House Members and a quarter of the Senate, will make existing policies like the Hyde amendment permanent and will rid ObamaCare of its massive expansion of public funding for abortion insurance plans. The President repeatedly assured Americans that ObamaCare would ``maintain current Hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extend those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges.'' That promise didn't pan out, like so many other promises he made. It now joins, ``If you like your plan, you can keep it'' in President Obama's panoply of broken promises. Madam Speaker, last week hundreds of thousands of Americans came to Washington, D.C., braved the cold, and marched for life. Participants hailed from all 50 States, various religions, and all different walks of life. The one thing they had in common was a shared dedication to protecting the unborn. The March for Life gives a voice to the voiceless and sends a powerful message to Representatives of the people assembled here in Congress. It is heartening that so many Americans of different backgrounds are willing to take a stand for life. This is not a partisan issue, and this is not a partisan bill. H.R. 7 reflects the bipartisan, bicameral agreement that our government should not be in the business of subsidizing abortions. This is not a radical idea, Madam Speaker. It is a commonsense proposal that codifies a longstanding practice. Therefore, I again urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and H.R. 7. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle and every American watching at home that normal unemployment benefits remain in effect for all Americans in need. What has expired is the additional emergency unemployment compensation that goes above and beyond the normal compensation. This emergency compensation was put in place during the economic downturn and was always intended to be temporary. In fact, we have been told that the recession is over and that it has been over for a long time. Republicans want to help create jobs, and we call on the Senate to act on the bills we have sent them, and we will do just that. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that our colleagues are doing all that they can to portray this bill as an attack on women's rights. It is not that at all. I appreciate all of my colleagues who have spoken so eloquently on our side of the aisle about what this bill truly is. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Nunnelee).