[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 79 (Thursday, June 6, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H3229-H3234]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            PRO-LIFE CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, there are Kermit Gosnells all 
over American today inflicting not only violence, cruelty, and death on 
very young children but excruciating pain as well.
  Many Americans, including some who self-identify as pro-choice, were 
shocked and dismayed by the Gosnell expose and trial. Perhaps the 
decades-long culture of denial and deceptive marketing has made it 
difficult to see and understand a disturbing reality. Even after 40 
years of abortion-on-demand and over 55 million dead babies and 
millions of wounded mothers, many--until Gosnell--somehow construed 
abortion as victimless. That has changed. There are two victims, Mr. 
Speaker, in every abortion: the mother and her unborn child--three, if 
twins are involved.
  The brutality of severing the spines of defenseless babies, 
euphemistically called ``snipping'' by Dr. Gosnell, has finally peeled 
away the benign facade of the billion-dollar abortion industry. Like 
Gosnell, abortionists all over America decapitate, dismember, and 
chemically poison babies to death each and every year. That's what they 
do.
  Americans are connecting the dots and asking whether what Gosnell did 
is really any different than what all the other abortionists do. And 
the answer is, no, it's not different. A D&E abortion, which is 
described here as a common method after 14 months, is a gruesome, pain-
filled act of violence that literally rips and tears to pieces the body 
parts of a child. And that's what they call ``choice.'' That is what 
they call safe and legal abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, authored 
by Congressman Trent Franks and cosponsored by several Congresswomen 
and -men, including me, is a modest but absolutely necessary attempt to 
at least protect some babies, that is to say, those who are 20 weeks 
old and pain-capable, from having to suffer and die a painful death 
from abortion.
  On May 23, Chairman Trent Franks convened a hearing in the Judiciary 
Committee's Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee on his 
legislation. The bill, H.R. 1797, entitled the Pain-Capable Unborn 
Child Protection Act, was approved by the subcommittee on June 4 and 
now moves to the full committee and, hopefully, soon to the full House.
  The testimony of several witnesses, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully 
submit is a must-read for anyone who cares about human rights, for 
anyone

[[Page H3230]]

who cares about women and children. One witness, Dr. Anthony Levatino, 
a former abortionist, testified that he performed approximately 1,200 
abortions. Over 100 of them were second trimester abortions like this 
D&E procedure that is described here in this graph.
  He said:

       Imagine, if you can, you are a pro-choice obstetrician/
     gynecologist like I once was. Your patient today is 24 weeks 
     pregnant. If you could see her baby, which is quite easy on 
     an ultrasound, she would be as long as your hand plus half 
     from the top of her head to the bottom of her rump, not 
     counting the legs. Your patient has been feeling her baby 
     kick for at least a month or more. But now she is asleep on 
     an operating table.

  He continued:

       With suction of the amniotic fluid, after that is 
     completed, you look for what he called a Sopher clamp. This 
     instrument is about 13 inches long and made of stainless 
     steel. At the business end are located jaws about 2\1/2\ 
     inches long and about three-quarters of an initial inch.

  This is what he is talking about right here.

                              {time}  1200

       This instrument is for grasping and crushing tissue. When 
     it gets hold of something, it does not let go.
       A second trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure. The 
     baby can be in any orientation, he goes on, or position 
     inside the uterus. Picture yourself reaching in with the 
     Sopher clamp and grasping anything that you can.
       At 24 weeks' gestation, the uterus is thin and soft, so be 
     careful not to perforate or puncture the walls. Once you've 
     grasped something inside--this doctor, former abortionist, 
     goes on to say--squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull 
     hard. Pull really hard. You feel something let go and out 
     pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in again 
     and grasp whatever you can, set the jaw, and pull really hard 
     once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach 
     in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, 
     the intestines, the heart, and the lungs.
       The doctor goes on to say that, the toughest part of a D&E 
     abortion is extracting the baby's head. The head of a baby 
     that age is about the size of a large plum and is now free 
     floating inside of the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure 
     you have hold of it if the Sopher clamp is spread as far as 
     your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when 
     you crush down on the clamp and you see a white gelatinous 
     material coming through the cervix. That is the baby's 
     brains, this abortionist goes on to say. You can then extract 
     the skull in pieces.
       Many times, he went on in his testimony before Trent 
     Franks' subcommittee, many times a little face will come out 
     and stare back at you. Congratulations; you have just 
     successfully performed a second trimester D&E abortion. You 
     just affirmed the right to choose. If you refuse to believe 
     that this procedure inflicts severe pain on that unborn 
     child, please think again. It does.

  Another witness, Mr. Speaker, Ms. Jill Stanek, a registered nurse, 
spoke of appalling stories of abortion survivors and the pain--the 
pain--the excruciating pain that they suffer when they are being 
aborted.
  She pointed out that when she testified before the committee back in 
2001:

       it was to tell of her experience as a registered nurse in 
     the labor and delivery department at Christ Hospital in Oak 
     Lawn, Illinois, where she discovered babies were being 
     aborted alive and shelved, put on a shelf to die in the 
     department's soiled utility closet.

  Indeed, this nurse went on to say at the hearing:

       I was traumatized and changed forever by my experience of 
     holding a little abortion survivor for 45 minutes until he 
     died--a 21- to 22-week-old baby who had been aborted because 
     he had Down syndrome.

  Since then, other appalling stories of abortion survivors either 
being abandoned or killed have trickled out.
  In 2005, a mother delivered a 23-week-old baby in a toilet at an EPOC 
clinic in Orlando, Florida, and was shocked to see this little guy 
move. Abortion staff not only refused to help, but turned away 
paramedics, who her friend had notified by calling 911. Angele, the 
woman, could do no more than helplessly sit on the floor rocking and 
singing to her baby for 11 minutes until that infant died.
  In 2006, Sycloria Williams delivered her 23-week-old baby born on a 
recliner at a GYN diagnostic center in Hialeah, Florida. When he began 
breathing and moving, abortion clinic owner Belkis Gonzalez cut the 
umbilical cord and zipped him into a biohazard bag, still alive.
  The Kermit Gosnell case provides further evidence that the lines 
between infanticide and legal feticide, both via abortion, have become 
blurred. This abortionist was convicted only last week--that's when she 
was talking, when she testified--of three counts of first degree 
murder.

  And also last week, as she went on to say, in yet another revelation 
and photos from three former employees who alleged that abortionist 
Douglas Karpen in Houston, Texas, routinely kills babies after they are 
born by puncturing the soft spot at the top of the head, or impaling 
the stomach with a sharp instrument, twisting off the head, or 
puncturing the throat with his finger.
  Mr. Speaker, if that's not child abuse in its most extreme form, I 
don't know what is.
  It is easy to be horrified, she went on in her testimony to say, this 
nurse, by heart-wrenching stories such as these and to imagine the 
torture abortion survivors endure as they are being killed. But it is 
somehow not so easy for some to envision preborn babies the same age 
being tortured as they are killed by similar methods.
  Today, premature babies are routinely given pain relief who are born 
at the same age as babies who are torn limb from limb or injected in 
the heart during abortions.
  Even the World Health Organization goes so far as to recommend 
analgesia for premies getting simple heel pricks for a couple of drops 
of blood. Likewise, prenatal surgery is commonplace, and along with it, 
anesthesia for babies being operated on even in the middle of 
pregnancy. Meanwhile, babies of identical age are being torn apart by 
D&E abortions with no pain relief whatsoever. Again, they suffer, and 
they suffer horribly.
  It must be that some people inexplicably think that the uterus 
provides a firewall against fetal pain, or that babies marked for 
abortion are somehow numb while their wanted counterparts aren't. 
They're not numb. They feel every single bit of killing, whether it's 
the Sopher clamp or any other instrument is being used to dismember or 
to decapitate.
  She concludes by saying:

       This thinking is better suited for the Middle Ages than for 
     modern medicine.

  Mr. Speaker, today there is ample documentation that unborn children 
experience serious pain from at least the 20th week--and most likely 
even before that. When it comes to pain, all of us go through great 
lengths to mitigate its severity and its duration. None of us ever want 
to die a painful death. Unborn children deserve no less.
  I yield to the prime sponsor of this very important legislation, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), the chairman of the committee and, 
like I said, the author of the bill.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Well, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't often do this, but I'm going to step away from 
my prepared remarks just a moment and express a sincere gratitude to 
Congressman Chris Smith.
  Mr. Speaker, years ago, when I came to Washington the very first 
time, it was on a weekend. I couldn't come here and visit the Congress, 
but I came to the congressional halls of where their offices were. 
There were two offices that I visited. One was the late Henry Hyde--one 
of the greatest human beings to ever sit in this place--and the other 
was Chris Smith. I just have to say to you--I know it embarrasses him 
terribly, but this is my heart--I believe this man to be truly one of 
the greatest heroes in this Congress. All the 30-plus years that he has 
been here, he has given everything he had to protect little children 
who couldn't vote for him.
  I am just convinced, in the councils of eternity, that someone is 
going to look him in the eyes one day when he crosses over that 
threshold and say, ``Well done.'' And I am just grateful that we have 
men like that here.
  Mr. Speaker, Daniel Webster once said:

       Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the 
     Republic for which it stands. For miracles do not cluster--
     and America is a miracle, Mr. Speaker. For miracles do not 
     cluster, and what has happened once in 6,000 years may never 
     happen again. So hold on to the Constitution. For if the 
     American Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy 
     throughout the world.

  Our Founding Fathers wrote the words of our Constitution down for us 
because they didn't want us to forget their true meaning or to 
otherwise fall prey to those who would deliberately

[[Page H3231]]

undermine or destroy it. This has always been the preeminent reason why 
we write down documents or agreements or declarations or constitutions 
in the first place, to preserve their original meaning and intent.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. Speaker, it really causes us to ask ourselves the question: Why 
was all of this effort made? Why are we really here in this Chamber?
  And I would suggest to you that if we simply avail ourselves of the 
most cursory glance of the Founding Fathers, we are all here to protect 
the lives of Americans and their constitutional rights. And protecting 
the lives of Americans and their constitutional rights is the reason 
Congress exists in the first place.
  The phrases in the Fifth and the 14th Amendments capsulate our entire 
Constitution when they proclaim that ``no person shall be deprived of 
life, liberty, or property without due process of law.'' It's that 
simple. Those words are a crystal clear reflection of our Constitution 
and the proclamation that the Declaration of Independence put forward 
to all of us when it declared that ``all men''--and I would suggest to 
you, Mr. Speaker, that's all little babies too--``are created equal and 
endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, those being 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' Those words are the 
essence of America, and our commitment to them for more than two 
centuries has set America apart as the flagship of human freedom in the 
world. It has made us the ``unipolar superpower'' of this planet, and 
yet unspeakable suffering and tragedy have occurred whenever we have 
strayed from those foundational words.
  Our own United States Supreme Court did exactly that, Mr. Speaker, 
when they ruled that millions of men, women, and children were not 
persons under the Constitution because their skin was the wrong color. 
It took a horrible Civil War and the deaths of over 600,000 Americans 
to reverse that unspeakable tragedy. And we saw that same arrogance in 
1973 when the Supreme Court said ``the unborn child was not a person 
under the Constitution.'' And we have since witnessed the silent deaths 
of now over 55 million innocent little boys and baby girls who died 
without the protection of the Constitution, the protection that the 
Constitution gave them, and without the protection this Congress should 
have had the courage to defend.
  Mr. Speaker, the recent trial of Kermit Gosnell has played an 
instrumental role in exposing late-term abortions for what they really 
are--relocated infanticide. Kermit Gosnell is this now famous late-term 
abortionist convicted of murder, in part, for using scissors to cut the 
spinal cords of numerous little babies who had survived abortion 
attempts. One of his employees said that in one case that there was 
this little baby that had been so damaged by the process that it no 
longer had eyes or a mouth, but she could hear him screeching and 
making this sound like a little alien.
  I know sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we deliberately try to hide those 
things from our minds. I know I do. But once in awhile it's important 
just to think on the life of this one little child that was only in 
this world outside the womb for a few minutes and found nothing but 
horror and suffering, not knowing why, not knowing what the purpose or 
the reason was, and no one was there. I just have to say to you, Mr. 
Speaker, if that isn't wrong, then we can absolve ourselves forever 
because nothing is wrong. Had Kermit Gosnell done the same thing mere 
moments before when that little baby was still inside the womb, in many 
States in this union, in the land of the free and the home of the 
brave, it would have been entirely legal.
  We've seen similarly other late-term abortionists across this country 
exposed for such incomprehensibly barbaric practices. LeRoy Carhart in 
Maryland compared a ``baby in the womb before an abortion'' to ``meat 
in a crock pot.''
  Abortion clinic employees in Arizona explained to a woman seeking an 
abortion at 24 weeks that ``sometimes they are sometimes alive, yeah, 
but it doesn't necessarily mean that it''--the baby--``will come out 
whole.''
  Douglas Karpen in Texas has been accused by four separate employees 
of killing three to four born-alive babies per day by either cutting 
their spinal cords, forcing instruments in their soft spots on their 
heads, or twisting their heads off, completely off of their necks with 
his bare hands.
  Very simply, Mr. Speaker, the public is beginning to learn that there 
are scores of other Kermit Gosnells out there. He was not an 
aberration. One of the saddest things that we must not miss here, is 
that as evil as this man was, and the horrible things that he did, 
unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, they are not uncommon in America. And 
because of this, Americans are beginning to realize that somehow we are 
bigger than abortion on demand, and that 55 million dead children are 
enough.
  We are beginning to ask the real question: Does abortion take the 
life of a child? Mr. Speaker, that is the question that I would put 
before all of my colleagues and anyone in the sound of my voice, to ask 
themselves in their heart--put aside the rationalization just for a 
moment and ask yourself: Does abortion take the life of a child? If it 
does not, I'm willing to walk out of here and never mention the subject 
again. But if abortion really does kill a little baby, if it really 
does, then those of us sitting here in the seat of freedom, in the 
greatest, the most powerful Nation in the history of humanity, also 
find ourselves standing in the midst of the greatest human genocide in 
the history of the world.

  Throughout America's history, the hearts of the American people have 
always been moved with compassion when they discover a theretofore 
hidden class of victims. Once the humanity of the victim and the 
inhumanity of what is being done to them finally becomes clear in their 
minds, America changes their heart.
  I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, America is on the cusp of another 
such realization. And I fear if we fail to respond this time--because 
after this, after Kermit Gosnell, no excuse remains, we have seen the 
worst--if we do not respond, then we will slide into that Sumerian 
darkness where the light of human compassion has gone out and where the 
survival of the fittest has prevailed over humanity, and it must not 
happen on our watch in this generation.
  Medical science regarding the development of unborn babies and their 
capacities at various stages of growth has advanced dramatically, and 
it incontrovertibly demonstrates that unborn children clearly do 
experience pain. The single greatest hurdle to legislation like H.R. 
3803 has always been that opponents deny unborn babies feel pain at 
all, as if somehow the ability to feel pain magically develops 
instantaneously as a child passes through the birth canal.
  Mr. Speaker, this level of deliberate ignorance might have found 
excuse in earlier eras of human history, but the evidence available to 
us today is extensive and irrefutable: unborn children have the 
capacity to experience pain, at least by 20 weeks and, as Congressman 
Smith said, very likely substantially earlier.
  This information, Mr. Speaker, is at www.doctorsonfetalpain.org. I 
would sincerely recommend to anyone in this Chamber that is interested 
to really know the truth to go there and find out for themselves, 
rather than to have their understanding cemented in some earlier time 
when scientists still believed in spontaneous generation, and that the 
Earth was flat. That is the invincible ignorance sometimes that we find 
ourselves trying to break through on this seminal civil rights issue of 
our time.
  Most Americans think that late-term abortions are rare, but in fact 
there are approximately 120,000 late-term abortions in America every 
year, or more than 325 late-term abortions every day in America. Mr. 
Speaker, I believe we're better than that. We're better than 325 late-
term abortions every day in this country. I believe that we're better 
than dismembering babies who can feel pain at every agonizing moment. 
And I sincerely hope that we can at the very least come together to 
agree that we can draw a line in the sand at that point. That we can 
agree that knowingly subjecting our innocent unborn children to 
dismemberment in the womb, particularly when they have developed to the 
point when they can feel excruciating pain every

[[Page H3232]]

terrible moment leading up to their undeserved deaths, belies 
everything America was called to be. This is not who we are.

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. Speaker, what we are doing to babies is real. It is barbaric in 
the purest sense of the word. It is the greatest human rights violation 
occurring on U.S. soil, and it has already victimized millions of pain-
capable babies since the Supreme Court gave us all abortion-on-demand 
that tragic day in 1973.
  Thomas Jefferson said that the care of human life and its happiness 
and not its destruction is the chief and only object of good 
government. And ladies and gentlemen, using taxpayer dollars to fund 
the killing of innocent unborn children does not liberate their 
mothers. It leaves their mothers oftentimes with the brokenness and the 
emotional consequences without anyone there to really recognize what 
they have dealt with. It is not the cause for which those lying out 
under the white stones in Arlington National Cemetery died, and it is 
not good government.
  Abraham Lincoln called upon all of us to remember America's Founding 
Fathers and their enlightened belief that nothing stamped with the 
Divine image and likeness was sent into this world to be trodden on or 
degraded and imbruded by its fellows.
  He reminded those he called posterity--those, us--that when in the 
distant future some man, some faction, some interest should set up a 
doctrine that some were not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit 
of happiness that their posterity--that is us, ladies and gentlemen--
might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage 
to renew the battle which their fathers began.
  Mr. Speaker, may that be the commitment to all of us today.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank the gentleman from Arizona, and I thank the 
gentleman from New Jersey for their passion and also for their sharing 
with us today such an important issue that faces us as a country. It is 
a privilege and an honor to stand here with Mr. Smith and Mr. Franks. I 
thank you for your work, for all you have done for so long on an issue 
that is close to my heart and close to many people's hearts across the 
country as well. To see the picture here that Mr. Smith showed, if that 
doesn't touch a part of you, I don't know what will. So thank you for 
the information and for the heart that you show for these little ones 
that are blessed with life until it is ended in such a brutal way.
  Mr. Speaker, the horrific case of Kermit Gosnell stripped away the 
abortion industry's euphemisms and showed that abortion isn't safe and 
that it isn't rare. Gosnell murdered newborn babies; he preyed on 
vulnerable women; and he stuffed bodies into freezers, trash bags and 
cat food tins. While a jury has handed down its verdict for Kermit 
Gosnell, we as the American people must render our verdict on abortion.
  Americans must take a hard look at abortion's grim reality. Gosnell's 
clinic, the court case and the verdict for Kermit Gosnell brought us as 
Americans face-to-face with the brutality of abortion. We cannot turn 
our backs on it now. It is time for an open and honest discussion about 
abortion in this country. Kermit Gosnell's crimes shocked civilized 
people everywhere.
  The inescapable truth is that there is no moral distinction between 
ending a child's life 5 seconds after birth or 5 weeks before. Sadly, 
across this country, abortion providers like Planned Parenthood 
routinely perform brutal late-term abortions on unborn children who are 
able to feel pain. The end result at a Planned Parenthood clinic is the 
same result that occurred at Kermit Gosnell's clinic--and that is 
death.
  So I am proud to stand here today to cosponsor Mr. Franks' 
legislation to prohibit the gruesome abortions of unborn children, who 
can feel pain. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his consistent 
and strong support of the measure and, to a larger extent, for his 
support for the unborn children as we've seen today as he spoke so 
eloquently from the floor.
  Today, I am proud to join my colleagues Mr. Smith, Mr. Harris and 
others who have stood up for those who cannot speak for themselves. I 
am confident that we will expose big abortion's lies and restore a 
lasting respect for innocent life.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Stutzman, for your eloquent 
remarks as well as those of Chairman Franks', who is compassionate and 
courageous like you and like our next speaker, who is also eloquent in 
the defense of the most defenseless.
  I would like to yield to Dr. Andy Harris, who is a board-certified 
anesthesiologist at Johns Hopkins Hospital Medical Center.
  Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
organizing this because we come to Washington to make tough decisions. 
That's what the country expects of us.
  Mr. Speaker, I will offer the fact that one of the most difficult 
decisions we have to come to grips with is when do we begin to protect 
human life. The gentleman from Arizona was absolutely right. We have to 
answer the question: Does abortion take the life of a human child? If 
we all agree that it does, then we have to ask ourselves and come to an 
agreement on at what point do we begin to protect that life; at what 
point are we as a Nation going to say that human life is worthy of 
protection.
  Now, as a physician, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you I am always puzzled 
by the question because, scientifically, everyone who has taken a 
genetics course knows that, from the moment of conception, it is a 
unique human life. The one-cell embryo is a unique human life, 
different from every other one in the world--ever. Every cell in each 
and every one of our bodies has the exact DNA that we had when we were 
one cell big. The only difference is the number of cells we had. One 
would argue, certainly, as the illustration here shows, that this is 
not a one-celled fetus, or baby--it's a human being that given time 
will grow, that will grow to be your size or my size. I'm 6-foot-4. I'm 
a little bigger than normal. Some people are shorter than average, but 
we're all human beings, so size doesn't make the difference.
  Again, from a scientific point of view, to me, it's clear: it is a 
human life from conception and should be protected. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I 
understand the country doesn't agree. Some people don't agree it should 
be protected. So the question is: At what point do you protect it?
  A lot of people would say at this point it probably is worth 
protecting that human life. Certainly, the jury in Pennsylvania said 
that you couldn't kill that baby right after it was born. Strangely 
enough, Federal law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, says that it 
can be legal to kill that child 5 minutes before that birth. I think 
most Americans find that repulsive--that with a baby at almost 9-
months' gestation, in many States, it is legal to kill that child 5 
minutes before birth, but in Pennsylvania it resulted in three murder 
sentences because it was 5 minutes after birth.
  So what this bill says is let's come together, and let's agree on a 
time when human life is going to be protected. It's not going to be a 
perfect agreement. It's going to be arbitrary because, again, that 
human life started when it was one cell large. At conception, that 
human life started. We all agree that, Mr. Speaker, you and I are human 
life and worthy of protection, so the only question is: Where do we 
draw the line?
  Again, the gentleman from Arizona suggested correctly that we need to 
draw that line. This bill attempts to draw the line. The Supreme Court 
attempted to draw a very clumsy drawing of the line in the Roe v. Wade 
decision because it said it is viability, but the problem is that 
viability, over the 30-plus years I've practiced medicine, has changed. 
It's a moving target.

                              {time}  1230

  Viability then was 25 weeks. Now it's 23\1/4\. It's a moving line. 
And what does viability mean? Viability means it can survive without 
the support of that mother.
  That's a little arbitrary, Mr. Speaker. If that mother had an elderly 
mother or grandmother at home, perhaps disabled with Alzheimer's 
disease, totally dependent on that mother--now, it's not their mother, 
but it's the mother of a child, a fetus. That grownup could be totally 
dependent on that

[[Page H3233]]

other human being, that other human adult; and yet that human adult 
doesn't have the option of saying, Well, since that individual is 
dependent upon me, I can make a life-and-death decision for that 
individual. No, that would be wrong. We'd all say that's wrong. So 
we're going to have to draw the line somewhere.
  This bill says, Let's do it when we believe that baby begins to feel 
pain, that, in fact, a D&E procedure will be exceedingly painful. Mr. 
Speaker, this is exactly what happens in a D&E procedure. The fetus, 
the baby is literally torn apart. Literally. This is what happens with 
it.
  So we're all going to have to agree that, first of all, this is 
certainly not pleasant to look at. The medical illustrations when I was 
studying, of course, which was around the time of Roe v. Wade, didn't 
have this kind of illustration; but abortion policy in this country in 
the past 30 years forces us to actually illustrate what it looks like. 
This is it.
  So this bill says--again, in the context of the Gosnell trial showing 
all America that--and I think almost all America agrees that what 
happened in Pennsylvania, knowingly killing by snipping the spinal cord 
of an alive, awake baby right after an abortion procedure that resulted 
in a live birth is, in fact, murder. It's the taking of a human life 
subject to punishment.
  But most people would say, How are we going to protect this child? I 
offer that this is a compromise that maybe we all can work around and 
say that if that child during that procedure feels pain, then it 
probably should be protected under our law.
  The question again is not clear cut. There will be some disagreement 
among people when that pain can be felt. There's a lot of indication 
scientifically and chemically and with neurodevelopment that that child 
feels pain at 20 weeks. It's certainly a little more subject to 
discussion whether it's earlier.
  I will tell you later shouldn't be subject to discussion because, Mr. 
Speaker, you know that if you do a procedure on a premature infant born 
and brought to the neonatal intensive care unit, you actually 
administer pain relievers when you do the procedure. So the medical 
community has already decided that by 23 weeks it already feels pain; 
and believe me, Mr. Speaker, it didn't magically occur with birth, the 
ability to feel pain.
  Again, we can know by the development of the nervous system, by 
things we can see and measure. We believe that at 20 weeks that fetus, 
that baby, can feel pain and therefore deserves protection.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that's a compromise we all ought to be 
able to work with. Again, it is a compromise because, Mr. Speaker, I 
will tell you that human life does begin at conception. The discussion 
here is not going to be when human life begins. It's when should this 
body, this Congress, this government protect the most innocent of human 
life.
  I'm going to agree that I think it's very reasonable to say when this 
fetus, this baby, can feel the pain of that procedure, it ought to be 
protected in some ways. Is it the perfect way? Maybe not. But we ought 
to begin that discussion because right now, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme 
Court's interpretation of the law allows a State to allow an abortion 
that kills a baby right up to the moment of birth, and that's just not 
right. We need to set some line in law.
  Again, I'll agree with the gentleman from Arizona that it may not be 
a perfect line, but we all have to agree we need to draw it to begin 
thinking about it; and I would suggest this is a reasonable one. When 
are we no longer going to subject that baby to the pain of a procedure 
and begin to protect that baby's life?
  I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey again. He's brought the 
issue before this body. If we believe that this is just some abstract 
thought about when we protect human life, as I've spoken about on the 
floor and the gentleman from New Jersey has--Mr. Speaker, I suggest if 
you want some very interesting reading tonight, go home and Google the 
Journal of Medical Ethics and look for the article published last 
November where academics from Australia and Italy wrote an article 
suggesting that it should be all right to kill a human baby up to some 
certain amount of time after birth if that human baby is inconvenient 
to the mother and the family to which it belongs.
  I would offer, Mr. Speaker, I hope that never happens in this 
country, that that suggestion never takes root here. I think we would 
find that horrendous. But it does bring up the question that if we find 
it so horrendous 1 minute after birth, shouldn't it be horrendous 1 
minute before birth? And if it's 1 minute before birth, how about 1 
week? How about 1 month? How about 2 months? We can go all the way 
back. Should it be when the heartbeat appears at 7 weeks? At 7 weeks' 
gestation, the heartbeat appears. Even earlier. Should it be when the 
baby moves, when quickening is felt? That's the medical term: 
quickening.

  This bill sets a reasonable point of discussion. Let's do it when we 
think a baby would feel the pain of that abortion.


                          Chinese Human Rights

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I want to thank my good friend and very 
distinguished colleague, Dr. Andy Harris, for his very eloquent and 
very incisive remarks and for his leadership on behalf of human rights 
in general, including here in the United States.
  We've been discussing human rights abuse here in the United States in 
trying to defend at least pain-capable unborn children from the 
violence of abortion. I would like to focus for a few moments on human 
rights abuse that is occurring halfway around the world in China.
  Tomorrow, President Obama will meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping 
in California to discuss security and economic issues. A robust 
discussion of human rights abuses in China, however, must be on the 
agenda and not in a superfluous or superficial way.
  It is time to get serious about China's flagrant abuse of human 
rights. It's time for this President, this administration to end its 
manifest indifference towards human rights abuse in the People's 
Republic of China. It's time for President Obama to cease his numbing 
indifference towards the victims of Beijing's abuse.
  Mr. Speaker, can a dictatorship that crushes the rights and freedoms 
of its own people be trusted on trade and security?
  China today is the torture capital of the world, and victims include 
religious believers, ethnic minorities, human rights defenders like 
Chen Guancheng and Gao Zhisheng and hundreds and thousands of political 
dissidents.
  If you are a political or religious dissident or believer of the 
Underground Christian Church, Falun Gong, a part of the Uyghur Muslim 
minority or Tibetan Buddhist, if you are arrested, you will be 
tortured, and in some cases you will be tortured to death.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, hundreds of millions of women have been 
forced to abort their precious babies pursuant to China's draconian 
one-child policy which has led to gendercide, the violent extermination 
of unborn baby girls simply because they are girls. The slaughter of 
the girl child in China is not only a massive gender crime, but a 
security issue, as well.

                              {time}  1240

  A witness at one of my hearings that I chaired--I chair the 
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights, and International 
Organizations. Over the years, I have chaired over 46 congressional 
hearings focused exclusively on China's human rights issues. One of the 
witnesses at one of my earlier hearings, Valerie Hudson, author of a 
book called ``Bare Branches,'' testified that gender imbalance will 
lead to instability and chaos and even to war because of the domestic 
chaos and instability that will occur. And that the one child has not 
enhanced China's security, but it has demonstrably weakened it.
  Nick Eberstadt, the world-renowned AEI demographer, has famously 
phrased it and asked the question: What are the consequences for a 
society that has chosen to become simultaneously more gray and more 
male--the missing daughters, by the tens of millions in China--as a 
direct result of sex-selection abortion?
  In 2000, Mr. Speaker, I authored a law known as the Trafficking 
Victims Protection Act of 2000. It is our landmark

[[Page H3234]]

law in combating the hideous crime of modern-day slavery, sex, and 
labor trafficking. China has now become the magnet for the traffickers, 
buying and selling women as commodities, selling them in China against 
their will, of course, through coercion, because of the missing girls, 
the missing daughters, and the missing young women.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the world remembered the dream that 
was and is the Tiananmen Square protest of 1989 and deeply honored the 
sacrifice endured by an extraordinarily brave group of pro-democracy 
Chinese women and men who dared to demand fundamental human rights for 
all Chinese. Twenty-four years ago this week, the world watched in awe 
and wonder, as it has since mid-April of 1989, as hundreds of thousands 
of mostly young people peacefully petitioned the Chinese Government to 
reform and to democratize. China seemed to be the next impending 
triumph for freedom and democracy, especially after the collapse of the 
dictatorships of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. But when 
the People's Liberation Army poured in and around the square on June 3, 
the wonder of Tiananmen turned to shock, tears, fear, and helplessness. 
On June 3 and 4, and for days, weeks, and years, right up until today, 
the Chinese dictatorship delivered a barbaric response--mass murder, 
torture, incarceration, the systematic suppression of fundamental human 
rights, and coverup.
  The Chinese Government not only continues to inflict unspeakable pain 
and suffering on its own people, but the coverup of the Tiananmen 
Square massacre is without precedent in modern history. Even though 
journalists and live television and radio documented the massacre, the 
Chinese Communist Party lies and continues to deny it, that it even 
occurred, to obfuscate, and to threaten anyone who dares speak out in 
China about the massacre and all of the terrible barbarity that 
followed.
  In December of 1996, Mr. Speaker, General Chi Haotian, the 
operational commander who ordered the murder of the Tiananmen 
protesters, visited Washington, D.C., as the Chinese Defense Minister. 
You see, he was promoted after he killed all of those innocent people. 
Minister Chi was welcomed by President Clinton at the White House with 
full military honors, including a 19-gun salute--a bizarre spectacle 
that I and many others on both sides of the aisle protested. But why do 
I bring this up now? General Chi addressed the Army War College on that 
trip and in answer to a question said:

       Not a single person lost his life in Tiananmen Square.

  He claimed that the People's Liberation Army did nothing more violent 
than the ``pushing of people'' during the 1989 protest. Not a single 
person lost his or her life? Are you kidding?
  That big lie and countless others like it, however, is, and it was 
then, the Communist Party's line about Tiananmen.
  As chair of the Foreign Affairs Human Rights Committee then, I put 
together a congressional hearing within 2 days--December 8, 1996--and 
witnesses who were there on Tiananmen Square in 1989, including Dr. 
Yang Jianli, a leader and survivor of the massacre, and Time magazine 
Bureau Chief David Aikman, who were actually witnesses at my hearing 
this past Monday. We also invited Minister Chi, or anyone the Chinese 
Embassy might want to send to the hearing to give an accounting of that 
blatant lie. I guess Minister Chi thought he was back in Beijing when 
he was at the Army War College where the big lie is king and no one 
ever dares to do a fact check.
  Last week, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of State asked the 
Chinese Government to ``end harassment of those who participated in the 
protest of 1989 and fully account for those killed, detained, or 
missing.'' What was the response from the Chinese Government? The 
Chinese Foreign Ministry acrimoniously said that the United States 
should ``stop interfering in China's internal affairs so as not to 
sabotage China-U.S. relations.''
  We have heard that line from the Soviet Union. We heard it from those 
who supported apartheid in South Africa: Don't interfere.
  Human rights are universal, and we need to speak out boldly and 
without fear when they are violated, wherever and whenever they occur.
  ``Sabotage'' Sino-American relations because our side requests an end 
to harassment and an accounting? It sounds to me like they have much to 
hide.
  Therefore, Mr. President, tomorrow when you meet with the unelected 
President of China, and Saturday when you meet with him as well, please 
be informed, be bold, be tenacious, and seriously raise human rights 
with Chinese President Xi. No superficial intervention. No checking off 
on the box, Yes, I raised human rights. Raise real names. Ask for their 
release. Raise real issues, like the horrific one child per couple 
policy or the endemic use of torture by the Chinese dictatorship. Raise 
the 16 cases that are being raised and given to you to raise of 
individuals, people who in China are like the modern-day Natan 
Sharansky or others who have suffered so much for freedom for all these 
years--like Gao Zhisheng and others.
  Mr. Speaker, we will not forget what took place in Tiananmen Square 
24 years ago this past Monday and Tuesday. The struggle for freedom in 
China continues. Some day the people of China will enjoy all of their 
God-given fundamental human rights; and as a nation of free Chinese 
women and men, they will some day honor and applaud all those who 
suffered so much in the Laogai, the Chinese gulags, and sacrificed so 
much for so long.
  Mr. President, the ball is in your court. President Obama, raise 
these issues and do it in a robust, sincere, yes, diplomatic, but very 
powerful way.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.

                          ____________________