[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 87 (Tuesday, June 18, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H3708-H3720]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1947, FEDERAL AGRICULTURE REFORM 
  AND RISK MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
          H.R. 1797, PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 266 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 266

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, 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. 1947) to provide for the reform and 
     continuation of agricultural and other programs of the 
     Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Agriculture. After general debate, the Committee 
     of the Whole shall rise without motion. No further 
     consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant 
     to a subsequent order of the House.
       Sec. 2.  Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1797) to 
     amend title 18, United States Code, to protect pain-capable 
     unborn children in the District of Columbia, 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, an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     113-15 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, and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1320


                             Point of Order

  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 
266 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order 
against consideration of the bill, H.R. 1797, which includes a waiver 
of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a 
violation of section 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Maryland makes a point 
of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentlewoman has met the threshold burden under the rule and the 
gentlewoman from Maryland and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means 
of disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, when the majority began this Congress, it 
began with the idea, in their language, that they would adhere to 
fiscal responsibility and to constitutionality--in fact, we read the 
Constitution on the floor of this body--and that they had learned the 
lessons from the election slaughtering in 2012, and that is to stop the 
assault on women's health care. But, oh, no. Here we are today with a 
bill, H.R. 1797, that violates the Congressional Budget Act, that 
violates the Constitution, and that violates the doctor-patient 
relationship that a woman has with her doctor, and we haven't focused 
on jobs.
  So, when you look at H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child 
Protection Act, it would impose a ban across the country on abortion 
after 20 weeks. Aside from ignoring medical realities and placing the 
lives of mothers with serious medical conditions at risk through 
governmental interference with the doctor-patient relationship, the 
underlying bill also includes reporting requirements that, according to 
the Congressional Budget Act, which it would violate, would add costs 
to local law enforcement.
  With a total of 25 States introducing 64 similar abortion-ban 
measures in the

[[Page H3709]]

last 3 years, this bill is yet another assault on women's reproductive 
rights and is blatantly unconstitutional.
  Abortion care in this country is a private, medical decision that's 
made between a woman and her health care provider. Those are the only 
people who should be in the room. And yet here in this legislation 
they've created just a narrow exception that doesn't even take into 
account the risk to a woman's health and would subject physicians to 
criminal penalties for caring for their patients.
  H.R. 1797 contains unreasonable, unjustified penalties for doctors, 
including 5 years in jail, and would have a negative impact on abortion 
care and reproductive health care all across the country. By 
jeopardizing and criminalizing abortion care, we limit the options 
women have to receive comprehensive reproductive health care. And these 
limitations could lead women to access abortion care that is both 
unsafe and dangerous to their health.
  I'd like to yield 15 seconds to the other side if they would care to 
address the question of whether this closed rule means that there will 
not be a single amendment or alternative offered to this bill, which 
has a profound effect on women's health and reproductive rights. I 
yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina if she cares to 
answer that question.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, this is a dilatory tactic and has nothing to 
do with our bill.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Well, reclaiming my time, under the rule, it's the case 
that the bill I believe that we'll vote on today for final passage has 
not followed regular order, and it has been rewritten after its 
adoption in the Judiciary Committee. The American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Nation's leading medical experts 
on women's health, strongly opposes a 20-week ban citing the threats 
these laws pose to women's health.
  With that, I would like to yield 1 minute to my colleague from 
California (Mr. Peters).
  Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, today we're discussing a bill 
that's divisive, will never become law, and is an affront to women's 
health.
  As a longtime advocate for a woman's right to choose and the idea 
that women and their doctors should be making personal health 
decisions, not politicians, I stand in strong opposition.
  This 20-week abortion ban is a harmful measure that jeopardizes a 
woman's health and her ability to have a family in the future by 
denying her access to an abortion even if she experiences severe, 
dangerous health complications as a result of a pregnancy.
  In a potentially life-threatening situation, a woman and her doctor 
deserve to have every medical option available to them. This bill is 
clearly unconstitutional and an attempt to substitute politicians' 
judgment for that of doctors and their patients as they make their 
difficult, personal medical decisions.
  Instead of bringing bills to the floor that address the major issues 
facing our country right now, the Speaker and majority leader have 
brought another bill to a vote that is much more about political 
posturing than helping America's economy or students.
  I ask the leadership of the House, how many jobs does this bill 
create? Does this bill help balance our budget? How many student loans 
will be kept at a low rate by passing this bill?
  Ms. EDWARDS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the 
point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is: Should the 
House now consider H. Res. 266? While the resolution waives all points 
of order against consideration of the bill, the Committee on Rules is 
not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This is 
a dilatory tactic.
  In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for 
the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of 
consideration of the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it's very clear to me that the underlying 
bill, in fact, does violate the Congressional Budget Act. It imposes an 
unfunded mandate on local police departments for the work that they do.
  Now, it's this crowd on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, who 
is opposed to unfunded mandates. Nevertheless, it's also true that, in 
fact, the decision to receive an abortion in this country, particularly 
late in a pregnancy, is an intensely personal decision, and yet it's 
the suits on the other side of the aisle who've decided that it's their 
decision to interfere with a woman's right to make those choices 
between herself and her doctor. It's a decision that none of us wants 
to face and one that legislators, particularly Members of Congress, 
should not interfere with.
  The bill also cites the Constitution as its authority in order to 
qualify under the rules of the House. And yet it is blatantly--
blatantly--unconstitutional, completely inconsistent with the Supreme 
Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.
  And so I'd like to yield 15 seconds, again, to the gentlewoman from 
the other side to ask her whether, under the definitions in this bill, 
what does it mean to not have protection of the life of the mother 
include psychological or emotional condition?
  Well, the gentlewoman can't answer that, and so I suppose I could ask 
her, as well, if the Speaker would allow, I yield, again, 15 seconds to 
the gentlewoman, if this bill cites the Constitution as its authority 
in order to qualify under the rules of the House, and yet it's 
blatantly unconstitutional, do House rules allow it to be considered, 
allow H.R. 1797 even to be considered on the floor of this House if 
it's unconstitutional?
  I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said before. This is a 
dilatory tactic, and we should be moving on to the resolution.

                              {time}  1330

  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I know that the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina and the other side would prefer to 
yield and move on with a bill that violates the Budget Control Act, 
violates the Constitution, and violates the relationship between a 
doctor and a patient; and yet the decision to receive an abortion is a 
woman's, and a woman's alone.
  In addition, H.R. 1797 infringes on the right of the District of 
Columbia to make decisions about the way in which it cares for its 
residents. I mean, the majority is all over the place--interfering with 
the District of Columbia, interfering with women's rights to make the 
decision by themselves, and actually stepping on the toes of local law 
enforcement to impose costs on them to enforce an unconstitutional 
bill. Thank goodness it won't become law.
  The sponsor of this bill is certainly entitled to his beliefs--and it 
was a ``his,'' because on the Judiciary Committee that considered this, 
there's not a single Republican woman who had the chance to consider 
this on the Judiciary Committee. And yet the role of the government 
should not be to limit access to health care or to limit the freedom 
and liberties of the public. We should recognize that this decision is 
one best left to a woman, in consultation with her doctor, her family, 
and her faith.
  Women across this country don't rely on Congress and politicians to 
advise them on mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, or maternal 
health needs; and abortion is no different. As with these other 
procedures, we should make comprehensive health care available to all 
women and allow them, with the consult of their health provider and 
loved ones, to decide when, how, and why they take care of their 
health.
  Americans, including women, sent a clear message last November at the 
polls. They're tired of Congress meddling in their business and taking 
extreme and divisive legislation targeted at assaulting women's health.
  And so with that, I'd actually yield another 15 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina if she would care to respond: Whether 
today, given that 40 percent of women are primary breadwinners in their 
household, but women continue to face workplace challenges,

[[Page H3710]]

pay inequity, and other barriers to fully contribute to our economy, 
would you agree that this bill does not address those economic 
challenges for women, or create jobs, and is an exercise in political 
theater at best?
  With that, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman to respond.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentlewoman for asking the question.
  What I think most Americans would wonder, Mr. Speaker, is where is 
the due process for the millions of babies who are murdered every year 
in this country by these unconscionable tactics of abortion.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Reclaiming my time, I'd like to yield 15 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes, I would just like to ask a question:
  Are there any Republican women on the House Judiciary Committee, 
which reported this legislation? And do you think it's fair or proper 
for a body of men to solely determine one of the most important and 
private decisions a woman can make in regard to her own health and 
body?
  Ms. EDWARDS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Maryland has 1\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I guess I just have a few questions that I 
will put out there on the table.
  The American people want us to work to address the Nation's most 
urgent priorities, like creating jobs and strengthening the economy. I 
wonder if the Speaker at all can inform us what jobs this particular 
bill creates.
  Under the new reporting requirements in this bill for rape and incest 
victims, would they have to report even if their life is in danger from 
the perpetrator? Curious question. Does this bill disqualify more than 
half of all rape victims, since 54 percent of these rape victims do not 
report rape due to intimidation and embarrassment? Under the 
definitions in this bill, what does it mean not to have protection of 
the life of the mother included in psychological and emotional 
conditions? Does the bill disqualify, again, rape victims? Is it the 
case that the bill redefines what qualifies as incest by only applying 
it to a minor? So an adult, who has been victimized by a relative since 
childhood and who gets pregnant, is not allowed to have an abortion or 
a pregnancy with that relative? We have a lot of questions.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you, women across America are tired of 
having their rights assaulted. They're tired of having their health 
care decisions taken from them. We need to vote down H.R. 1797.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, in order to allow the House to continue its 
scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the 
question of consideration of the resolution, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
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, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 266 provides for a closed 
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn 
Child Protection Act, and general debate for H.R. 1947, the Federal 
Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today provides for general debate of 
H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act, also 
known as the FARRM Bill. This legislation provides for a 5-year 
authorization of Federal agriculture and nutrition policy.
  H.R. 1947 makes necessary reforms and updates to the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, previously known as food stamps, as well 
as Federal agriculture policy. It is important to make commonsense 
changes to these programs to ensure their viability and that they 
remain targeted to those most in need of assistance. This year's 
version of the farm bill has gone through regular order, including 
numerous hearings at the Agriculture Committee, a full committee markup 
and amendment process.
  Additionally, the Rules Committee has received hundreds of amendments 
from Members seeking to further improve the bill during floor 
consideration. House Republicans remain committed to an open, 
transparent process; and I am pleased to say we're continuing that 
commitment with the consideration and process for the FARRM Bill.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for 40 years I've been marching for this women's choice 
bill, but we seem never to finish with it. It's something that people 
like to drag up and bring out.
  In that regard, I want to ask the women of America to think of two 
things. First, I want you to remember the panel that Chairman Issa put 
together last year to discuss contraception and whether or not women 
should have access to it. If you recall, that panel was made up 
entirely of men. There was a young woman, a graduate of law school, who 
wanted to speak that day; but she was found to be unworthy, unable to 
speak. Indeed, her virtue, her character, everything else about her was 
assailed because she had tried to do what many of us know we can do 
here, and that is speak.
  Think about another thing now. Think about the Judiciary Committee; 
22--now 23--all white guys turning down every amendment to try to 
preserve women's health, to try to preserve women's psyche, and do 
anything in the world to do this--and to try to discuss that this bill, 
as my colleague vainly tried to do, that this is unconstitutional. 
Everybody knows it. Everybody knows the Senate's not going to take this 
up. This is purely window dressing.
  And as I do here often, I want to remind everybody that it costs $24 
million a week to run the House of Representatives. We've spent over 
$54 billion almost already now just trying to repeal the health care 
bill.

                              {time}  1340

  When in the world are we going to get to work? 2\1/2\ weeks from now, 
the interest rate on college loans will double. Are we doing anything 
about that? Not a thing on Earth. Do we care about the people who are 
out of work? Do we care about the people who are facing loss of their 
food stamps? No. We care more about war on women. Women of America, 
keep those two panels before your mind forever. Those are the 
deciders--the men on Issa's panel, the men on the Judiciary Committee.
  Now, in State Houses all over this country, and in Governors' 
mansions and Halls of Congress, the majority's antichoice agenda is 
driven by men in blue suits and red ties who seem to believe that once 
they get elected to something, they have a right to play doctor. I 
would like to think about what they have done over the last years to 
remind my fellow American women.
  Already, because of the majority's efforts, women in eight States are 
required to undergo an ultrasound before they can exercise their 
constitutionally protected right to a safe and legal abortion--an 
ultrasound that is not medically necessary, an ultrasound that is 
medically contradicted, and an ultrasound for which they are required 
themselves to pay. As we speak, the legislators in the State of 
Wisconsin have passed a similar measure through the State House and are 
awaiting the enactment into law.
  Most telling is right now more States have a waiting period for 
abortions

[[Page H3711]]

than a waiting period to buy a gun. Let me say that again. More States 
have a waiting period for abortions--a constitutionally protected 
procedure--than have a waiting period to buy a gun.
  Now, here in Congress, the majority conducted a hearing at the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee last year that I have already 
spoken of. There were five men and zero women. As you know, they talked 
about Sandra Fluke and all the vituperation and hatred that was poured 
down on her because she wanted to speak.
  But just last week--I think this past week--the majority took it a 
whole lot further. For the first time, during the committee, after it 
was all passed and gone, before it goes to the Rules Committee, the 
sponsor of this bill made one of those comments like Todd Akin had 
made. And I think if you scratch an awful lot of guys on that 
committee, they all feel the same way because it keeps coming up over 
and over. You can't get pregnant, they say, if you're raped. They 
believe that in the bottom of their heart, and some of them were 
doctors. But during the committee amendments to include the exceptions 
for the health of the mother and victims of rape and incest, they were 
rejected along party lines.
  Mr. Franks has been taken off the bill, and for the first time, in my 
recollection, unanimous consent has to be given here to ask a woman--
they have found a Republican woman who would take this bill--off a 
completely other committee and allow her to manage the bill. If that is 
not a first, I don't know what is. And if that is not PR, I don't know 
what is. And if that is not simply trying to fool you, I don't know 
what else that is.
  As Mr. Franks' remark and the extreme nature of his bill became 
clear, they realized they were about to anger the American women even 
more than they had last fall, and you know how that turned out at the 
election. Instead of abandoning the legislation and respecting a 
woman's right to choose, they decided to try to make changes to the 
underlying bill, after it had already passed through committee, and 
assign a woman outside the committee to manage a bill on the floor.
  Such a cowardly move is an insult to the intelligence of women in 
America. You are supposed to believe this was all done well and 
properly. No amount of window dressing is going to change the fact that 
you are severely trying to restrict a woman's right to choose with 
today's bill. I don't think anybody makes any bones about that.
  The majority has argued the legislation is in response to new 
science, even though if there has ever been a House of Representatives 
that cared not a whit for science, I can't imagine they would come even 
close to this one. When a fetus feels pain is the new idea. As my 
colleague, Mr. Nadler, has previously made clear, their so-called ``new 
findings'' are nothing more than the marginal views that fly in the 
face of established science. In fact, one of the experts upon which the 
majority relies has testified that science for and against fetal pain 
is most uncertain.
  The fact of the matter is that today's legislation is 
unconstitutional and contains a narrow and adequate exception for the 
life of a woman and a victim of rape and incest. No man on any of those 
committees, no man on any of those panels, is ever going to have to 
face that problem himself of rape and incest. How strange it is that 
they know the precise answer for people who are victimized by it.
  Many serious health conditions actually materialize or worsen after 
the 20-week mark in a pregnancy and can seriously compromise the health 
of the mother. A physician has to be able to provide the best care for 
their patients; and in cases where a woman's health is exacerbated by 
pregnancy, politicians have no right in intruding in the doctor-patient 
relationship and criminalizing those trying to protect their patients' 
lives and safety.

  Furthermore, the majority's requirement that a victim of rape or 
incest report the crime to authorities before receiving an abortion 
effectively prevents many victims from exercising the right to choose. 
More than half of all rape victims, as we know, don't report, and that 
is a sad thing.
  The requirement in today's bill ensures that a woman who has been a 
victim of rape or incest faces massive barriers to exercising her right 
to safe and legal reproductive health care. Mr. Speaker, from requiring 
women to undergo mandatory ultrasounds to applying police reporting 
requirements for victims of rape, the majority has made it very clear 
that they don't trust women. In fact, it came up at the Judiciary 
Committee that one of the reasons they needed to report it to police is 
because women would lie. I think they make an exception in that case 
for their sisters, their daughters, their mothers, perhaps. It is just 
the rest of us who can't be trusted.
  Try as he might, no man will ever understand the choice that faces a 
young woman who is told that she suffers from severe valvular heart 
disease and that, if she carries a child to term, her life and the life 
of that child are at risk, or the choice of a woman who is violently 
raped and would be reminded of the crime against her every moment of 
every day if she is forced to carry the pregnancy to term.
  I urge my colleagues to respect the established science on this issue 
and the constitutional right of every American woman. Reject today's 
rule and the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that my colleague from New York 
knows this, but I will make sure it gets into the Record.
  In the 2007 case of Gonzales v Carhart, the Supreme Court made clear 
that there is a ``legitimate interest of the government in protecting 
the life of the fetus that may become a child.'' The Supreme Court has 
also made clear that ``the government may use its voice and its 
regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within 
the woman,'' and that Congress may show such respect for the unborn 
through ``specific regulation because it implicates additional ethical 
and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am really troubled by the fact that so many of my 
colleagues simply refuse to acknowledge that we're dealing with human 
life in this situation, in the situation of abortion. My heart goes out 
to any woman who is facing a situation where they're considering 
abortion. I think every member of our conference feels that way--men 
and women. Nobody takes the issue of abortion lightly. Unfortunately, 
not enough attention is being paid to the unborn child.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield, now, 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Dr.--Congressman--Fleming.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from North 
Carolina for all of the great work she has done on this.
  I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to support the rule and the underlying 
bill, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, that is so vital.
  My background: I'm a physician who has delivered hundreds of babies 
during my career. In addition to that, I'm a husband of 35 years, a 
father of four--two boys, two girls--a grandfather of two boys, and 
soon, in 6 weeks, grandfather of a little girl, a little granddaughter, 
and I'm so proud.

                              {time}  1350

  Let me tell you for a moment about what I witnessed.
  At about the time of the 20 weeks, midterm, the 4-D ultrasound now 
gives such an amazing view into the window of that womb. What did I 
see? I could see that that little girl looks just like her big brother. 
Number two, in another frame, she is sucking her thumb. Then in another 
frame, she is holding up two fingers as though to say, Be patient. I'll 
be out soon.
  We have such wonderful technology, such technology that, today, we 
can actually do surgery on a fetus at 20 weeks in order to fix a heart 
ailment or some other condition that may kill the baby in the womb or 
soon thereafter. What have we learned from this technology? We have 
learned that they feel pain. We have to provide anesthesia.
  Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle, when it 
comes to animals, are all about the Humane Society and about the humane 
treatment of animals, and I have a high regard for that. When it comes 
to the issue of torture or even of discomfort for prisoners of war, 
they are all about supporting that.
  But what happens in a midterm or later pregnancy when there is an 
abortion? What happens is just absolute

[[Page H3712]]

torture. You realize that, in Washington, D.C., today, a woman can go 
for an abortion while she is in labor at term. And how would you do the 
abortion? How is it done? How did Dr. Gosnell do it? You stick a trocar 
into the skull, suck the brain out, literally dismember the baby limb 
from limb. What torture and what pain.
  Is that really the kind of people we are, Mr. Speaker? I think not.
  We understand that at least at 20 weeks, maybe sooner, the baby feels 
pain. So I would just submit to you today, Mr. Speaker, that this bill 
is not just about abortion--this is about pain; it's about torture to 
that young life. We can't say that this is like an amputation of a 
limb. That baby inside the womb has a distinct DNA that you will never 
see again either in history or in the future. It is a different human 
being. It's living there inside of its mother. So I am in support of 
this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the 
blatantly unconstitutional underlying legislation, which threatens the 
health and basic rights of women all over America.
  Right now, we should be working to create jobs and grow the economy. 
Instead, here we are again with the majority's trying to insert their 
extreme and divisive ideological preferences into law. Yet again, they 
are trying to impose their traditional view of a woman's role on 
everyone else--force women back into these traditional roles with 
limited opportunities.
  This legislation, which attempts to ban virtually all abortions after 
20 weeks, is a clear violation of the law of the land, and it has 
already been struck down in its sponsor's home State of Arizona, but 
they don't give much regard for the law of the land. Witness the number 
of times that they have voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act--37 
times. This bill is anti-choice, anti-Constitution, anti-science, and 
it is, yes, anti-woman.
  There is no exception in this bill for women whose health is 
threatened by carrying the fetus to term. Yes, why should we worry 
about women's health or whether they live or whether they die? Instead, 
this bill puts the Federal Government squarely between a woman and her 
doctor. It threatens doctors with 5 years in jail if they perform a 
legal, constitutional and sometimes medically necessary procedure.
  I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle:
  Does the bill disqualify more than half of all rape victims since 54 
percent of these victims do not report a rape due to intimidation or 
embarrassment?
  Or under the new reporting requirements in this bill for rape and 
incest victims, would they have to report even if their lives are in 
danger from the perpetrators?
  And yes, is it the case that this bill redefines what qualifies as 
``incest'' by only applying it to a minor? Therefore, an adult who has 
been victimized by a relative since childhood and who gets pregnant is 
not allowed to have an abortion from pregnancy with that relative?
  Simply put, this proposed ban is antithetical to our laws and is an 
affront to women's health, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine).
  Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
  In a report commissioned by the Department of Justice, Dr. Anand, a 
fetal pain expert, wrote:

       It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability 
     to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, and the pain 
     perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that 
     perceived by term newborns or older children.

  The reality of Dr. Anand's statement is seen in the fact that 
surgeons routinely administer anesthesia to unborn children before 
performing neonatal surgery. The truth is that at 20 weeks these unborn 
children feel every bit of pain inflicted on them in the name of 
``choice'' and in the name of ``convenience.''
  Mr. Speaker, what we do with this knowledge says a lot about us. If 
we turn a blind eye to the agony and suffering of our most vulnerable, 
can we say that we are still a Nation that pursues life, liberty and 
the pursuit of happiness? If we willingly embrace cruelty in the name 
of ``choice,'' then can we say with integrity that we continue to 
secure the blessings of liberty not only for ourselves but for our 
posterity?
  The good news is that, for those who have been affected by the pain 
of abortion, there is one who chose, who made a real choice, to endure 
pain on behalf of all of us, and by His stripes we are healed.
  Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, let us remember that even though 
we may not be able to hear their cries we are not absolved from the 
guilt of ignoring their pain.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. First, let me thank the gentlelady for 
yielding, but more importantly, I just want to thank Congresswoman 
Slaughter, our ranking member on the Rules Committee, for fighting for 
women's health and for the rights of women, really, all of her life.
  Thank you so much.
  I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. 
Once again, the Republicans have decided to make women's health a 
battleground as part of their, yes, ongoing war on women.
  The bill on the floor this week is nothing more than a direct 
challenge to Roe v. Wade and a vehicle for yet another ideological 
attack against women's reproductive rights. In fact, this is the 10th 
time that the Republicans have forced a vote on this topic since taking 
control of the House in 2011. The bill is a direct threat to the 
privacy rights and health of every woman living in this country and 
especially to women of color, who already face an increased stigma and 
other barriers to reproductive health due to the terrible Hyde 
amendment. Now, I remember the days of back alley abortions. Many women 
died and were permanently injured before Roe v. Wade. With this bill, 
Republicans have decided to try to take us back there--to threaten 
physicians, for instance, with criminal prosecution.
  Can you imagine a criminal prosecution for attempting to provide the 
medically accurate information and care that is best for their 
patients? Why in the world should Members of Congress or any legislator 
interfere with women's personal health choices?
  These private decisions should always be between a woman, her family, 
her doctor, or whomever else she chooses to help in making these very 
difficult decisions. We should not be making it--not you nor I. We 
should let women make their own decisions. Congress has no business in 
the personal lives of women--no business.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlelady an additional 10 seconds.
  Ms. LEE of California. We need to vote ``no'' on this rule and this 
bill. We need to get back to the real business--like creating jobs--
that we should be doing, like creating economic opportunities we should 
be doing. We should be trying to figure out how to reduce poverty. We 
should be trying to figure out how to ensure our young people have the 
best quality public education. There are many issues this Congress 
needs to take on. Why don't you stay out of the personal lives of 
women. It has no place on this floor.

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, contrary to what our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are accusing us of, we're talking about the beginning 
of the 6th month of pregnancy. Nothing in this bill has any impact on 
abortion during the first 20 weeks.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Montana (Mr. Daines).
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. Speaker, as a person of conscience, I believe we are 
called to protect the most vulnerable in our society.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is an important measure 
to do exactly that: protect unborn children who can feel pain. And as 
parents of four children, two boys and two girls, Cindy and I 
instinctively do all

[[Page H3713]]

we can as parents to protect our children from pain.
  During the Gosnell trial, we all learned of the gruesome methods of 
ending the life of just-born children, some of whom were a little over 
20 weeks old. If Gosnell aborted these children moments before they 
were removed from the womb in the method similar to the dismemberment 
which occurs in several clinics throughout our country and science 
tells us causes pain to the baby, would the loss of life have been any 
less tragic, any less appalling? We cannot stand idly by and allow such 
painful terminations of human life to continue.
  I urge passage of this bill, and I look forward to casting my vote in 
support of the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).
  Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
rule.
  I stand here on behalf of the women in Hawaii and across the Nation 
to continue to protect the fundamental right of women to have access to 
safe and legal abortion care. I strongly oppose the underlying bill, 
H.R. 1797, and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  The bill is like a leap backwards for women in our Nation. The very 
premise of this bill is contrary to credible scientific evidence and 
does not have the widespread support of our leading experts.
  H.R. 1797 goes against a decades-old Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. 
Wade, that gave women a fundamental right to choose, a protection 
provided in the United States Constitution. And remember, States were 
given the ability to regulate those laws. These proposed Federal 
restrictions are unconstitutional, inappropriate, and unnecessary.
  Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures available in this 
country, due in large part to the expertise and skill of our Nation's 
trained medical professionals who offer high quality care to women.
  This bill would threaten our doctors with 5-year prison terms for 
doing their jobs, even those that are caring for women who are facing 
serious health concerns with their pregnancies. It is critically 
important that our laws protect and support the woman's health, not 
deny access to care.
  Abortion care is a private medical decision between a woman and her 
health care provider. It is not the responsibility of Congress to 
infringe upon that right. That is why the American Congress of OB-GYNs, 
American Nurses Association, and 46 other organizations, in addition to 
15 religious groups, stand in strong opposition to this bill.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to stand strongly in 
opposition to this harmful and misleading bill and soundly vote ``no'' 
on the rule.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, there's a lot of talk about rights here 
today and very little talk about the right to life for the babies that 
are being aborted.
  Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Benishek).
  Mr. BENISHEK. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina for allowing me to be here as well.
  I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable 
Unborn Child Protection Act, and to urge my colleagues to support this 
important and long overdue piece of legislation.
  This bill will help to protect those in our society who are least 
able to defend themselves--the unborn. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child 
Protection Act will prohibit late-term abortions after the 20th week of 
a pregnancy for the simple reason that by 20 weeks of development, 
unborn children are able to feel and react to pain. This time period is 
based on extensive scientific research, and the majority of the 
American people are in favor of banning late-term abortions when they 
know that the unborn child is able to feel pain.
  As a doctor, I was horrified to hear the stories of gross misconduct 
and negligence that came to light in the trial of the Philadelphia 
abortionist Kermit Gosnell. The callous disregard for innocent human 
life that was displayed in the Gosnell clinic extended beyond 
unborn children to adult patients, and I believe that there is 
bipartisan agreement that this was terrible. The Pain-Capable Unborn 
Child Protection Act will help to prevent some of the worst abuses that 
were perpetrated by Kermit Gosnell and protect patients nationwide.

  As the overwhelming majority of my constituents in northern Michigan 
believe, life inside the womb is just as precious as life outside the 
womb, and it must be protected.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. I thank the ranking member.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to H.R. 
1797, which would callously and cavalierly limit access to abortion for 
women across the country.
  Boy, I tell you, the House GOP has truly pushed the limits this time 
by offering this unconstitutional bill.
  Madam Speaker, this week, the much-maligned Miss USA contestant, Miss 
Utah, alluding to the power dynamics between men and women in the 
workplace, was lampooned for a flubbed answer when she said, and I 
quote:

       I think especially the men are seen as the leaders of this, 
     and so we need to try to figure out how to create education 
     better so that we can solve this problem.

  However inarticulate, I think Miss Utah was on to something.
  When you consider the subject at hand, women's right to a medically 
safe abortion, we once again see men taking leadership roles and 
invading the privacy and medical decisions of women so that now we have 
before us a bill that is borne of ignorance and disregard for medical 
science in every way, shape, and form. There is no concern for the 
biology, physiology, sociology of the woman.
  Perhaps, if we could create education better of the importance of 
women's lives, we would not be here with this bill before us. This bill 
is an abomination, plain and simple, at its foundation, its heart, its 
utter disrespect for the dignity and health of women. It also has other 
harmful effects.
  Now, I am sympathetic for those women, as well, who face an abortion 
at 20 weeks. Often these women are facing complications that endanger 
their health or they have found out about a severe fetal anomaly. 
Others are victims of rape or incest. These are the most difficult 
decisions in their lives.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The time of the 
gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. MOORE. Medical providers have told us of harrowing tales of women 
who have developed life-threatening pre-eclampsia with impaired kidney 
functions, seizures, dangerously high blood pressure that threatens 
their health. They also tell us of the women who receive an aggressive 
cancer diagnosis right in the middle of their pregnancy and have to 
make the difficult choice between their pregnancy and their own life.
  In situations like these, women need to be able to consult their 
families and their doctors and no one else. Perhaps their own priest or 
rabbi or imam, but most certainly not their politician denying the care 
they need. It is hazardous, cruel, and simply the wrong thing to do.
  I thank the gentlelady for yielding time.

                              {time}  1410

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, this bill is not borne of ignorance but of 
extremely deep-felt concern for unborn children who suffer pain as they 
are being murdered.
  Madam Speaker, I fear for the conscience of our Nation because the 
termination of unborn children for any reason is tolerated in some 
parts of our country throughout pregnancy, even though scientific 
conclusions show infants feel pain by at least 20 weeks' gestation. 
That means literally that a baby at the halfway point of a pregnancy 
will experience pain during the violence of a dismemberment abortion, 
the most common second-trimester abortion wherein a steel tool severs 
limbs from the infant and its skull is crushed.
  Madam Speaker, it's even difficult for me to describe this procedure 
without getting emotional. These procedures are horrific, and in terms 
of pain, like torture to their infant subjects. As

[[Page H3714]]

a country, we should leave this practice behind. That's why I'm a 
cosponsor of the underlying legislation to prohibit elective abortions 
in the United States past 20 weeks. Since 1973, approximately 52 
million--52 million, Madam Speaker--children's lives have been 
tragically aborted in the United States. It is unconscionable that in 
America, where we fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness, we tolerate the systemic extermination of an entire 
generation of the most vulnerable among us.
  H.R. 1797 rejects that hypocrisy and provides commonsense protections 
for unborn children who feel pain, just as you and I do. My colleague 
and friend from Arizona, Representative Trent Franks, is a champion for 
the unborn, and I commend him for authoring this legislation, which 
prohibits an abortion of an unborn child that has surpassed 20 weeks 
after fertilization.
  In light of the recent conviction of Philadelphia-based, late-term 
abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who was found guilty of first-degree murder 
in the case of three babies born alive in his clinic and then killed 
through a procedure he called ``snipping,'' which involved Gosnell 
inserting a pair of scissors into the baby's neck and cutting its 
spinal cord, a procedure that was reportedly routine in his clinic, we 
cannot stand idly by.
  Madam Speaker, some would have us think that Gosnell is an anomaly or 
an outlier. However, after his conviction, more individuals have 
stepped forward to expose similar practices in other States. Americans 
should be asking how different are these snipping procedures from 
abortions performed throughout clinics in the country. Unfortunately, 
there is little difference between these procedures. The practice of 
murdering viable, unborn children who can feel pain must end. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in speaking for those who cannot speak for 
themselves and vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 1797. When debating the issue 
before us, it is important to understand that this is not strictly a 
matter of conscience but an issue with very real and potentially life-
altering implications for women and families across the Nation.
  It is my fundamental belief that the right to choose is and must 
remain a personal health decision that a woman makes in consultation 
with her doctor, without government intervention. Additionally, we 
should also be promoting policies that strive to reduce the number of 
unwanted pregnancies through improved access to family planning and 
contraception, as well as effective sex education.
  Sadly, rather than coming together to address our fiscal challenges 
and help stimulate job creation, the majority continues to doggedly 
pursue a radical ideological agenda. This legislation, like other 
attempts to restrict women's access to comprehensive health care, is 
unacceptable and could seriously endanger the health and safety of 
women across the country. As such, I firmly oppose the underlying bill 
and urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and 
colleague for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, pain, we all dread it. We avoid it. We even fear it. 
And we all go to extraordinary lengths to mitigate its severity and its 
duration.
  Madam Speaker, today, there are Kermit Gosnells all over America 
inflicting not only violence, cruelty, and death on very young 
children, but excruciating pain as well.
  Many Americans, including some who self-identified 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 moms, many--until Gosnell--somehow construed 
abortion as victimless and painless. That has changed.
  The brutality of severing the spines of defenseless babies--
euphemistically called ``snipping'' by Gosnell--has finally peeled away 
the benign facade of a billion-dollar abortion industry.
  I note parenthetically, and it may come as a shock to many, but 
according to the Americans United for Life Legal Defense Fund, the U.S. 
is among only four nations in the world that allows for abortions for 
any reason after viability, and one of only nine nations that allows 
abortions after 14 weeks. We're in some pretty bad company, Madam 
Speaker, because that includes China and North Korea. We are far 
outside the global mainstream.
  I would note, Madam Speaker, that like Gosnell, abortionists all over 
America decapitate, they dismember, and they chemically poison babies 
to death each and every day. That's what they do. Americans are 
connecting the dots and asking whether what Gosnell did is really 
different than what other abortionists do. I would note to my 
colleagues that a D&E abortion, a common method after 14 weeks, is a 
gruesome, pain-filled act that literally rips and tears to pieces the 
body parts of a child.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a modest but 
necessary attempt to at least protect babies who are 20 weeks old--and 
pain capable--from having to suffer and die from abortion.
  I would note to my colleagues that a majority of Americans are with 
us trying to protect lives. According to a recent Gallup poll, 64 
percent of Americans believe that abortion should not be permitted in 
the second 3 months of pregnancy; 80 percent say abortion should not be 
permitted in the last 3 months of pregnancy. The polling company found 
that 63 percent of women believe that abortion should not be permitted 
after the point where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn 
child can feel pain. The women get it, and they have so polled when 
asked if they are against this kind of pain for babies.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act recognizes the medical 
evidence that unborn children feel pain. We are not living in the Dark 
Ages. One leading expert in the field of fetal pain, Dr. Anand, at the 
University of Tennessee stated in his expert report, commissioned by 
the U.S. Department of Justice:

       It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability 
     to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not 
     earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more 
     intense than that perceived by term newborns or older 
     children.

  Surgeons today entering the womb to perform corrective procedures, 
Madam Speaker, on unborn children, have seen those babies flinch, jerk, 
and recoil from sharp objects and incisions.

                              {time}  1420

  Surgeons routinely administer anesthesia to unborn children in the 
womb. We now know that the child ought to be treated as a patient, and 
there are many anomalies, many sicknesses that can be treated while the 
child is still in utero. When those interventions are done, anesthesia 
is given.
  Dr. Colleen Malloy, assistant professor, Division of Neonatology at 
the Northwestern University, in her testimony before the House 
Judiciary Committee in May of 2012 said:

       When we speak of infants at 20 weeks post-fertilization we 
     no longer have to rely on inferences or ultrasound imagery, 
     because such premature patients are kicking, moving and 
     reacting and developing right before our eyes in the neonatal 
     intensive care unit.

  In other words, there are children the same age who, in utero, can be 
killed by abortion who have been born and are now being given 
lifesaving assistance.
  She went on to say:

       In today's medical arena, we resuscitate patients at this 
     age and are able to witness their ex-utero growth.

  She says:

       I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to 
     horrific procedures such as those that involve limb 
     detachment or cardiac injection.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I join my many colleagues 
today who have spoken out against this outrageous bill.

[[Page H3715]]

  I also want to object to the way that my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle have brought up H.R. 1797 for consideration.
  When a bill that affects the lives and the health of women all across 
our country is coming up for this consideration, we deserve to have an 
open process. But, instead, the majority is taking a rather 
undemocratic approach, blocking all amendments to this harmful bill.
  Beyond the fact that the bill is unconstitutional, it endangers the 
lives of women across our country. It places a ban on abortions with 
the narrowest of rape and incest exceptions, and it forces a woman who 
has been raped to report the attack to law enforcement before seeking 
an abortion.
  So I have to ask these questions: Do the sponsors of this legislation 
understand the trauma that a rape survivor endures?
  And do they understand what a cruel message that is to send to a 
woman in her time of greatest need?
  Madam Speaker, those of us who are here in the Congress, I believe we 
all came here to solve the problems of the day. As we address our 
national priorities, is this issue high on their list?
  Is this the issue that gives people confidence that Congress 
understands the challenges that people throughout America face today?
  I know what those challenges are, I think. I've listened to my 
constituents. They worry about putting food on the table, a roof over 
their heads, and sending their kids to college.
  So here we are, with a very narrow agenda, with an issue that is 
being used to strike at the heart of women's health issues.
  I urge my colleagues, please reject this rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, even Kermit Gosnell's own defense attorney, 
having gone through all the evidence at trial, said:

       I've come out of this case realizing that 24 weeks is a bad 
     determiner. It should be more like 16, 17 weeks. That would 
     be a far better thing, and I think the law should be changed 
     to that. I think pro-choice would have still the right to 
     choose, but they've got to choose quicker.

  We are talking here, Madam Speaker, about the beginning of the 6th 
month of pregnancy. Nothing in this bill has any impact on abortion 
during the first 20 weeks.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has other 
requests for time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, we will use the balance of our time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Well, that sort of leaves me uninformed. But I want to 
introduce the previous question before I do my closing. And I'm hoping 
you are prepared to close. Is that correct?
  Ms. FOXX. No, Madam Speaker. I'm not just yet ready to close, but if 
my colleague is ready to close--
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. No, I'll reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Is the gentlewoman from New York ready to close? I thought 
that was the question she was asking.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. That was the question I had asked you. I am prepared 
to. Mr. Connolly is my last speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the gentlelady from New York like to 
recognize the gentleman?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Not until I find out if we're prepared to close.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, as advances in medical science result in improved 
treatments and personalized medicine, the development of unborn 
children is further understood. Doctors can perform lifesaving 
surgeries on babies still in the womb at earlier points in the 
pregnancy than ever before.
  When a baby is born prematurely, medical innovation is increasing the 
likelihood of that baby's survival. Babies born as early as 20 weeks 
post-fertilization are being cared for in neonatal units across the 
country.
  By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. By 
20 weeks post-fertilization, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that 
would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human. The baby 
responds the same way you and I respond to pain, by recoiling from it.
  As Dr. Anand, at the University of Tennessee, who is considered the 
leading expert in the field of fetal pain, stated in a report accepted 
by a Federal judge as expert testimony:

       It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability 
     to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not 
     earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more 
     intense than that perceived by term newborns or older 
     children.

  Surgeons entering the womb to perform corrective procedures on unborn 
children have seen those babies flinch, jerk, and recoil from sharp 
objects and injections. Recognizing this discomfort, surgeons routinely 
administer anesthesia to unborn children in the womb before performing 
surgeries.
  According to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in 
America, babies aborted at 14 weeks or later are often subjected to a 
painful dismemberment abortion, which involves inserting a long steel 
tool into the woman and grabbing, usually an arm or a leg, tearing it 
from the baby's body and pulling it out of the mother. The procedure is 
repeated as the baby is torn, limb from limb, until his or her entire 
body has been removed and the head is finally crushed and removed. The 
dismemberment abortion is the most common method of abortion in the 
second trimester.
  Another abortion procedure involves injecting digoxin and/or 
potassium chloride into the baby's heart, which induces cardiac arrest, 
and the baby's killed.
  Madam Speaker, it's important that the American people understand 
exactly what happens when they hear the word ``abortion.'' It is a 
heart-wrenching, painful procedure that tears a baby limb from limb 
before crushing his or her head, or it is a poisonous chemical 
injection.
  A March 2013 poll conducted by a polling company found that 64 
percent of the public supports a law like the Pain-Capable Unborn Child 
Protection Act, prohibiting an abortion after 20 weeks when an unborn 
baby can feel pain, unless the life of the mother is in danger.
  Supporters included 47 percent of those who identified themselves as 
pro-choice in the poll. The poll also found that 63 percent of women 
believe that abortion should not be permitted after the point where 
substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel pain.

                              {time}  1430

  Madam Speaker, Congress cannot sit idly by while this grotesque and 
brutal procedure which rips the tiny baby apart limb by limb in the 
womb is performed in our country. That is why it is necessary for 
Congress to pass H.R. 1797 and protect the lives of these unborn 
children from this excruciating pain.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a summary of the 
evidence of the unborn pain research.
  Madam Speaker, I now reserve the balance of my time.

                        Fetal Pain: The Evidence

            [From www.doctorsonfetalpain.org, Mar. 14, 2011]

       The eleven points below summarize the substantial medical 
     and scientific evidence that unborn children can feel pain by 
     20 weeks after fertilization.

   1: Pain receptors (nociceptors) are present throughout the unborn 
 child's entire body by no later than 20 weeks after fertilization and 
  nerves link these receptors to the brain's thalamus and subcortical 
          plate by no later than 20 weeks after fertilization.


                             DOCUMENTATION

       a. Pain receptors (nociceptors) are present throughout the 
     unborn child's entire body by no later than 20 weeks.
       1. Myers, 2004, p.241, para.2, ``The first essential 
     requirement for pain is the presence of sensory receptors, 
     which first develop in the perioral area at approximately 7 
     weeks gestation and are diffusely located throughout the body 
     by 14 weeks.\95\''
       Myers LB, Bulich LA, Hess, P, Miller NM. Fetal endoscopic 
     surgery: indications and anaesthetic management. Best 
     Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology. 18:2 (2004) 
     231-258.
       \95\Smith S. Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience. 
     London: CARE, 1996.
       2. Derbyshire, 2010, p.7, para.2, ``For the foetus, an 
     existence of `pain' rests upon the existence of a stimulus 
     that poses a threat to tissue, being detected by a nervous 
     system capable of preferentially responding to stimuli that 
     pose a threat to tissue. The entire experience is completely 
     bounded by the limits of the sensory system and the 
     relationship between that system and the stimulus. If pain is 
     conceived of in this manner then it becomes possible to talk 
     of foetal pain anytime between 10 and 17 weeks GA 
     [gestational age] when nociceptors develop and

[[Page H3716]]

     mature, and there is evidence of behavioural responses to 
     touch.''
       Note: Derbyshire's other published works indicate that he 
     believes pain requires subjective human experience, not 
     possible until after birth; nonetheless, he acknowledges this 
     finding.
       Derbyshire SW, Foetal pain? Best Practice & Research 
     Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 24:5 (2010) 647-655.
       3. Anand, 1987, p.2, para.2, ``Cutaneous sensory receptors 
     appear in the perioral area of the human fetus in the 7th 
     week of gestation; they spread to the rest of the face, the 
     palms of the hands, and the soles of the feet by the 11th 
     week, to the trunk and proximal parts of the arms and legs by 
     the 15th week, and to all cutaneous and mucous surfaces by 
     the 20th week.25,26''
       Anand KJS, Hickey PR. Pain and its effects in the human 
     neonate and fetus. New England Journal of Medicine. 317:21 
     (1987) 1321-1329.
       \25\Humphrey T. Some correlations between the appearance of 
     human fetal reflexes and the development of the nervous 
     system. Progress in Brain Research. 4 (1964) 93-135.
       \26\Valnaan HB, Pearson JP. What the fetus feels. British 
     Medical Journal. 280 (1980) 233-234.
       4. Vanhatalo, 2000, p.146, col.2, para.2, ``First 
     nociceptors appear around the mouth as early as the seventh 
     gestational week; by the 20th week these are present all over 
     the body.''
       Vanhatalo S, van Nieuwenhuizen O. Fetal Pain? Brain & 
     Development. 22 (2000) 145-150.
       5. Brusseau, 2008, p.14, para.3, ``The first essential 
     requirement for nociception is the presence of sensory 
     receptors, which develop first in the perioral area at around 
     7 weeks gestation. From here, they develop in the rest of the 
     face and in the palmar surfaces of the hands and soles of the 
     feet from 11 weeks. By 20 weeks, they are present throughout 
     all of the skin and mucosal surfaces.\19\
       Brusseau R. Developmental Perpectives: is the Fetus 
     Conscious? International Anesthesiology Clinics. 46:3 (2008) 
     11-23.
       \19\Simons SH, Tibboel D. Pain perception development and 
     maturation. Seminars on Fetal and Neonatal Medicine. 11 
     (2006) 227-231.
       6. Rollins, 2012, p.465, ``Immature skin nociceptors are 
     probably present by 10 weeks and definitely present by 17 
     weeks. Nociceptors develop slightly later in internal organs. 
     Peripheral nerve fibers that control movement first grow into 
     the spinal cord at about 8 weeks of gestation.''
       Mark D. Rollins, Mark A. Rosen, ``Anesthesia for Fetal 
     Intervention and Surgery'', in Gregory's Pediatric 
     Anesthesia, ed. George A. Gregory & Dean B. Adropoulos (West 
     Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 444-474, 465.
       b. nerves link these receptors to the brain's thalamus and 
     subcortical plate by no later than 20 weeks after 
     fertilization.
       1. Van Scheltema 2008, p.313, para.1--``The connection 
     between the spinal cord and the thalamus (an obligatory 
     station through which nearly all sensory information must 
     pass before reaching the cortex) starts to develop from 14 
     weeks onwards and is finished at 20 weeks.''
       Van Scheltema PNA, Bakker S, Vandenbussche FPHA, Oepkes, D. 
     Fetal Pain. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review. 19:4 (2008) 
     311-324.
       2. Glover, 1999, p.882, col.1, para.1, ``Most incoming 
     pathways, including nociceptive ones, are routed through the 
     thalamus and, as stated above, penetrates the subplate zone 
     from about 17 weeks... These monoamine fibres start to invade 
     the subplate zone at 13 weeks and reach the cortex at about 
     16 weeks. This puts an early limit on when it is likely that 
     the fetus might be aware of anything that is going on in its 
     body or elsewhere.''
       Glover V. Fetal pain: implications for research and 
     practice. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 106 
     (1999) 881-886.
       3. Lee, 2005, p.950, col.1, ``In contrast to direct 
     thalamocortical fibers, which are not visible until almost 
     the third trimester, thalamic afferents begin to reach the 
     somatosensory subplate at 18 weeks' developmental age (20 
     weeks' gestational age)\16\ and the visual subplate at 20 to 
     22 weeks' gestational age. These afferents appear 
     morphologically mature enough to synapse with subplate 
     neurons.\17\''
       Note: Lee et al. believe that pain requires conscious 
     cortical processing, which they deem unlikely until 29 or 30 
     weeks; nonetheless, they acknowledge this finding.
       Lee SJ, Ralston HJP, Drey EA, Partridge, JC, Rosen, MA. A 
     Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence. Journal 
     of the American Medical Association. 294:8 (2005) 947-954.
       \16\Kostovic I, Rakic P. Developmental history of the 
     transient subplate zone in the visual and somatosensory 
     cortex of the macaque monkey and human brain. Journal of 
     Comparative Neurology. 297 (1990) 441-470.
       \17\Hevner RF. Development of connections in the human 
     visual system during fetal mid-gestation: a Diltracing study. 
     Journal of Experimental Neuropathology & Experimental 
     Neurology. 59 (2000) 385-392.
       4. Gupta, 2008, p.74, col.2, para.1, `` Peripheral nerve 
     receptors develop between 7 and 20 weeks gestation . . . 
     Spinothalamic fibres (responsible for transmission of pain) 
     develop between 16 and 20 weeks gestation, and 
     thalamocortical fibres between 17 and 24 weeks gestation.''
       Gupta R, Kilby M, Cooper G. Fetal surgery and anaesthetic 
     implications. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical 
     Care & Pain. 8:2 (2008) 71-75.
       5. Van de Velde, 2012, p 206, para.3, ``To experience pain 
     an intact system of pain transmission from the peripheral 
     receptor to the cerebral cortex must be available. Peripheral 
     receptors develop from the seventh gestational week. From 20 
     weeks' gestation [= 20 weeks post-fertilization] peripheral 
     receptors are present on the whole body. From 13 weeks' 
     gestation the afferent system located in the substantia 
     gelatinosa of the dorsal horn of the spinal cord starts 
     developing. Development of afferent fibers connecting 
     peripheral receptors with the dorsal horn starts at 8 weeks' 
     gestation. Spinothalamic connections start to develop from 14 
     weeks' and are complete at 20 weeks' gestation, whilst 
     thalamocortical connections are present from 17 weeks' and 
     completely developed at 26-30 weeks' gestation. From 16 
     weeks' gestation pain transmission from a peripheral receptor 
     to the cortex is possible and completely developed from 26 
     weeks' gestation.''
       Marc Van de Velde & Frederik De Buck, Fetal and Maternal 
     Analgesia/Anesthesia for Fetal Procedures. Fetal Diagn Ther 
     31(4) (2012) 201-9.

 2: By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. 
   After 20 weeks, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be 
  recognized as painful if applied to an adult human, for example by 
                               recoiling.


                             DOCUMENTATION

       a. By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts 
     to touch.
       1. Gupta, 2008, p.74, col.2, para.2, ``Movement of the 
     fetus in response to external stimuli occurs as early as 8 
     weeks gestation. . .''
       Gupta R, Kilby M, Cooper G. Fetal surgery and anaesthetic 
     implications. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical 
     Care & Pain. 8:2 (2008) 71-75.
       2. Glover, 2004, p.36, para.4, ``The fetus starts to make 
     movements in response to being touched from eight weeks, and 
     more complex movements build up, as detected by real time 
     ultrasound, over the next few weeks.''
       Glover V. The fetus may feel pain from 20 weeks; The Fetal 
     Pain Controversy. Conscience. 25:3 (2004) 35-37.
       3. Myers 2004, p.241, para.6, ``A motor response can first 
     be seen as a whole body movement away from a stimulus and 
     observed on ultrasound from as early as 7.5 weeks' 
     gestational age. The perioral area is the first part of the 
     body to respond to touch at approximately 8 weeks, but by 14 
     weeks most of the body is responsive to touch.''
       Myers LB, Bulich LA, Hess, P, Miller, NM. Fetal endoscopic 
     surgery: indications and anaesthetic management. Best 
     Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology. 18:2 (2004) 
     231-258.
       4. Derbyshire, 2008, p.119, col.2, para.4, ``Responses to 
     touch begin at 7-8 weeks gestation when touching the peri-
     oral region results in a contralateral bending of the head. 
     The palms of the hands become sensitive to stroking at 10-11 
     weeks gestation and the rest of the body becomes sensitive 
     around 13-14 weeks gestation.35''
       Note: Derbyshire's other published works indicate that he 
     believes pain requires subjective human experience, not 
     possible until after birth; nonetheless, he acknowledges this 
     finding.
       Derbyshire SW. Fetal Pain: Do We Know Enough to Do the 
     Right Thing? Reproductive Health Matters. 16: 31Supp. (2008) 
     117-126.
       35 Fitzgerald M. Neurobiology of fetal and 
     neonatalpain. In:Wall P, Melzack R, editors. Textbook of 
     Pain. Oxford Churchill Livingstone, 1994. p.153-63.
       5. Kadic, 2012, page 3, ``The earliest reactions to painful 
     stimuli motor reflexes can be detected at 7.5 weeks of 
     gestation (Table 2).''
       Salihagic Kadic, A., Predojevic, M., Fetal neurophysiology 
     according to gestational age, Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal 
     Medicine. 17:5 (2012) 1-5, 3.
       b. After 20 weeks following fertilization, the unborn child 
     reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if 
     applied to an adult human, for example by recoiling.
       1. Gupta, 2008, p. p.74, col.2, para.2, ``Behavioural 
     responses. . . Response to painful stimuli occurs from 22 
     weeks gestation [= 20 weeks post-fertilization].''
       Gupta R, Kilby M, Cooper G. Fetal surgery and anaesthetic 
     implications. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical 
     Care & Pain. 8:2 (2008) 71-75.
       2. Giannakoulopoulos, 1994, p.77, col.2, para.3, ``We have 
     observed that the fetus reacts to intrahepatic vein needling 
     with vigorous body and breathing movements, which are not 
     present during placental cord insertion needling.''
       Giannakoulopoulos X, Sepulveda W, Kourtis P, Glover V, Fisk 
     NM. Fetal plasma cortisol and b -endorphin response to 
     intrauterine needling. Lancet. 344 (1994) 77-81.
       3. Lowery, 2007, p.276, col.2, para1, ``Fetuses undergoing 
     intrauterine invasive procedures, definitely illustrative of 
     pain signaling, were reported to show coordinated responses 
     signaling the avoidance of tissue injury.15''
       Lowery CL, Hardman MP, Manning N, Clancy B, Hall RW, Anand 
     KJS. Neurodevelopmental Changes of Fetal Pain. Seminars in 
     Pernatology. 31 (2007) 275-282.
       15 Williams C. Framing the fetus in medical 
     work: rituals and practices. Social Science & Medicine. 60 
     (2005) 2085-2095.
       4. Mellor, 2005, p.457, col.1, para.2, ``For instance, the 
     human fetus responds to intrahepatic needling (versus 
     umbilical cord sampling) by moving away and with an increase 
     in the levels of circulating stress hormones. . 
     .71,72,74,75''

[[Page H3717]]

       Note: Mellor et al. believe that the unborn child is kept 
     `asleep' in utero, and therefore does not perceive pain; 
     nonetheless, they recognize this finding.
       Mellor DJ, Diesch TJ, Gunn AJ, Bennet L. The importance of 
     `awareness' for understanding fetal pain. Brain Research 
     Reviews. 49 (2005) 455-471.
       71 Giannakoulopoulos X, Sepulveda W, Kourtis P, 
     Glover V, Fisk NM. Fetal plasma cortisol and b-endorphin 
     response to intrauterine needling. Lancet. 344 (1994) 77-81.
       72 Giannakoulopoulos X, Teixeira J, Fisk N. 
     Human fetal and maternal noradrenaline responses to invasive 
     procedures. Pediatric Research. 45 (1999) 494-499.
       74 Gitau R, Fisk NM, Teixeira JM, Cameron A, 
     Glover V. Fetal hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal stress 
     responses to invasive procedures are independent of maternal 
     responses. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 
     86 (2001) 104-109.
       75 Gitau R, Fisk NM, Glover V. Human fetal and 
     maternal corticotrophin releaseing hormone responses to acute 
     stress. Archives of Disease in Childhood--Fetal Neonatal 
     Edition. 89 (2004) F29-F32.
       5. Bocci, 2007, page 31-32, ``By week 14, the repertoire of 
     movements is complete. Fetal movements may be spontaneous, 
     reflecting individual needs of the fetus, or may be evoked, 
     reflecting fetal sensitivity to its environment.''
       C. Bocchi et al, Ultrasound and Fetal Stress: Study of the 
     Fetal Blink-Startle Reflex Evoked by Acoustic Stimuli. 
     Neonatal Pain, ed. Giuseppe Buonocore & Carlo V. Bellieni 
     (Milan: Springer, 2007), 31-32.

    3: In the unborn child, application of such painful stimuli is 
 associated with significant increases in stress hormones known as the 
                            stress response.


                             DOCUMENTATION

       1. Tran, 2010, p.44, col.1, para.7, ``Invasive fetal 
     procedures clearly elicit a stress response . . .''
       Tran, KM. Anesthesia for fetal surgery. Seminars in Fetal & 
     Neonatal Medicine. 15 (2010) 40-45.
       2. Myers, 2004, p.242, para.2, ``Human fetal endocrine 
     responses to stress have been demonstrated from as early as 
     18 weeks' gestation. Giannakoulopoulos et al 99 
     first demonstrated increases in fetal plasma concentrations 
     of cortisol and b-endorphin in response to prolonged needling 
     of the intrahepatic vein (IHV) for intrauterine transfusion. 
     The magnitude of these stress responses directly correlated 
     with the duration of the procedure. Fetuses having the same 
     procedure of transfusion, but via the non-innervated 
     placental cord insertion, failed to show these hormonal 
     responses. Gitau et al 100 observed a rise in b-
     endorphin during intrahepatic transfusion from 18 weeks' 
     gestation, which was seen throughout pregnancy independent 
     both of gestation and the maternal response. The fetal 
     cortisol response, again independent of the mother's, was 
     observed from 20 weeks' gestation.100 Fetal 
     intravenous administration of the opioid receptor agonist, 
     fentanyl, ablated the b-endorphin response and partially 
     ablated the cortisol response to the stress of IHV needling, 
     suggesting an analgesic effect.101 A similar, but 
     faster, response is seen in fetal production of noradrenalin 
     to IHV needling. This too is observed in fetuses as early as 
     18 weeks, is independent to the maternal response and 
     increases to some extent with gestational age.102 
     Thus, from these studies one can conclude that the human 
     fetal hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is functionally 
     mature enough to produce a b-endorphin response by 18 weeks 
     and to produce cortisol and noradrenalin responses from 20 
     weeks' gestation.''
       Myers LB, Bulich LA, Hess, P, Miller, NM. Fetal endoscopic 
     surgery: indications and anaesthetic management. Best 
     Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology. 18:2 (2004) 
     231-258.
       99 Giannakoulopoulos X, Sepulveda W, Kourtis P, 
     Glover V, Fisk NM. Fetal plasma cortisol and b-endorphin 
     response to intrauterine needling. Lancet. 344 (1994) 77-81.
       100 Gitau R, Fisk NM, Teixeira JM, Cameron A, 
     Glover V. Fetal hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal stress 
     responses to invasive procedures are independent of maternal 
     responses. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 
     86 (2001) 104-109.
       101 Fisk NM, Gitau R, Teixeira MD, 
     Giannakoulopoulos, X, Cameron, AD, Glover VA. Effect of 
     Direct Fetal Opioid Analgesia on Fetal Hormonal and 
     Hemodynamic Stress Response to Intrauterine Needling. 
     Anesthesiology. 95 (2001) 828-835.
       102 Giannakoulopoulos X, Teixeira J, Fisk N, 
     Glover V. Human fetal and maternal noradrenaline responses to 
     invasive procedures. Pediatric Research. 45(1999) 494-499.
       3. Derbyshire, June 2008, p.4, col.1, para.5, ``Another 
     stage of advancing neural development takes place at 18 
     weeks, when it has been demonstrated that the fetus will 
     launch a hormonal stress response to direct noxious 
     stimulation.''
       Note: Derbyshire believes that pain requires subjective 
     human experience, not possible until after birth; 
     nonetheless, he acknowledges this finding.
       Derbyshire SW. Fetal Pain: Do We Know Enough to Do the 
     Right Thing? Reproductive Health Matters. 16: 31Supp. (2008) 
     117-126.
       4. Gupta, 2008, p.74, col.2, para.3, ``Fetal stress in 
     response to painful stimuli is shown by increased cortisol 
     and b-endorphin concentrations, and vigorous movements and 
     breathing efforts.7,9 There is no correlation 
     between maternal and fetal norepinephrine levels, suggesting 
     a lack of placental transfer of norepinephrine. This 
     independent stress response in the fetus occurs from 18 weeks 
     gestation.10''
       Gupta R, Kilby M, Cooper G. Fetal surgery and anaesthetic 
     implications. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical 
     Care & Pain. 8:2 (2008) 71-75.
       7 Boris P, Cox PBW, Gogarten W, Strumper D, 
     Marcus MAE. Fetal surgery, anaesthesiological considerations. 
     Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology.17 (2004) 235-240.
       9 Giannakoulopoulos X, Teixeira J, Fisk N. Human 
     fetal and maternal noradrenaline responses to invasive 
     procedures. Pediatric Research. 45 (1999) 494-499.
       10 Marcus M, Gogarten W, Louwen F. Remifentanil 
     for fetal intrauterine microendoscopic procedures. Anesthesia 
     & Analgesia. 88 (1999) S257.
       5. Fisk, 2001, p.828, col.2, para.3, ``Our group has shown 
     that the human fetus from 18-20 weeks elaborates pituitary-
     adrenal, sympatho-adrenal, and circulatory stress responses 
     to physical insults.'' p.834, col.2, para.2, ``This study 
     confirms that invasive procedures produce stress responses. . 
     .''
       Fisk NM, Gitau R, Teixeira MD, Giannakoulopoulos, X, 
     Cameron, AD, Glover VA. Effect of Direct Fetal Opioid 
     Analgesia on Fetal Hormonal and Hemodynamic Stress Response 
     to Intrauterine Needling. Anesthesiology. 95 (2001) 828-835.
       6. Kadic, 2012, page 3, ``As early as 16-18 weeks, fetal 
     cerebral blood flow increases during invasive 
     procedures.26,27 An elevation of noradrenaline, 
     cortisol, and beta-endorphin plasma levels, in response to 
     needle pricking of the innervated hepatic vein for 
     intrauterine transfusion, was registered in a 23-week-old 
     fetus [= 21 weeks post-fertilization].'' (Table 2).''
       Salihagic Kadic, A., Predojevic, M., Fetal neurophysiology 
     according to gestational age, Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal 
     Medicine (2012) 1-5, 3, doi:10.1016/j.siny.2012.05.007.
       26 Teixeira JM, Glover V, Fisk NM. Acute 
     cerebral redistribution in response to invasive procedures in 
     the human fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:1018e25.
       27 Smith RP, Gitau R, Glover V, et al. Pain and 
     stress in the human fetus. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 
     2000;92:161e5.

  4: Subjection to such painful stimuli is associated with long-term 
 harmful neurodevelopmental effects, such as altered pain sensitivity 
 and, possibly, emotional, behavioral, and learning disabilities later 
                                in life.


                             DOCUMENTATION

       1. Van de Velde, 2006, p.234, col.1, para.3, ``It is 
     becoming increasingly clear that experiences of pain will be 
     `remembered' by the developing nervous system, perhaps for 
     the entire life of the individual.22,33, These 
     findings should focus the attention of clinicians on the 
     long-term impact of early painful experiences, and highlight 
     the urgent need for developing therapeutic strategies for the 
     management of neonatal and fetal pain.''
       Van de Velde M, Jani J, De Buck F, Deprest J. Fetal pain 
     perception and pain management. Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal 
     Medicine. 11 (2006) 232-236.
       22 Vanhalto S, van Nieuwenhuizen O. Fetal Pain? 
     Brain & Development. 22 (2000) 145-150. 33 Anand 
     KJS. Pain, plasticity, and premature birth: a prescription 
     for permanent suffering? Nature Medicine. 6 (2000) 971-973.
       2. Vanhatalo, 2000, p.148, col.2, para.4, ``All these data 
     suggest that a repetitive, or sometimes even strong acute 
     pain experience is associated with long-term changes in a 
     large number of pain-related physiological functions, and 
     pain or its concomitant stress increase the incidence of 
     later complications in neurological and/or psychological 
     development.''
       Note: Vanhalto & Niewenhuizen believe that pain requires 
     cortical processing; nevertheless, they acknowledge that, 
     ``noxious stimuli may have adverse effects on the developing 
     individual regardless of the quality or the level of 
     processing in the brain . . . after the development of the 
     spinal cord afferents around the gestational week 10, there 
     may be no age limit at which one can be sure noxae are 
     harmless.'' (p.149, col.1, para.2).
       Vanhalto S, van Nieuwenhuizen O. Fetal Pain? Brain & 
     Development. 22 (2000) 145-150.
       3. Gupta, 2008, p.74, col.2, para.3, `` There may be long-
     term implications of not providing adequate fetal analgesia 
     such as hyperalgesia, and possibly increased morbidity and 
     mortality.''
       Gupta R, Kilby M, Cooper G. Fetal surgery and anaesthetic 
     implications. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical 
     Care & Pain. 8:2 (2008) 71-75.
       4. Lee, 2005, p.951, col.1, para.3, ``When long-term fetal 
     well-being is a central consideration, evidence of fetal pain 
     is unnecessary to justify fetal anaesthesia and analgesia 
     because they serve other purposes unrelated to pain 
     reduction, including . . . (3) preventing hormonal stress 
     responses associated with poor surgical outcomes in neonates 
     71,72; and (4) preventing possible adverse effects 
     on long-term neurodevelopment and behavioral responses to 
     pain. 73-75.''
       Note: Lee et al. believe that pain requires conscious 
     cortical processing, which they deem unlikely until 29 or 30 
     weeks; nonetheless, they acknowledges this finding.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Congress should not be standing around while this is going on. 
Congress should also not be standing around

[[Page H3718]]

while college loan rates are doubling and we have so many people out of 
work.
  I'm delighted to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from 
New York, Carolyn Maloney.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank my fellow New Yorker and 
good friend for yielding and for her outstanding leadership in this 
body on so many, many issues, particularly in the area of health.
  My colleagues, once again, we need to ask ourselves where were the 
women when the Judiciary Committee produced this outrageous assault on 
women's health and women's reproductive rights? The answer is very 
clear. On this panel, there is not one female face participating in 
this crucial issue in their health care, absolutely nowhere. This is a 
photo of the members of the Judiciary Subcommittee that held a hearing 
on this legislation before us, and not one Republican on that panel is 
a woman.
  The bill that was produced is evidence that women did not participate 
in this decision-making. For example, it was not until the chair of 
that subcommittee made a comment not worthy of this House that the 
majority added an insulting and narrow exception for pregnancies 
resulting from rape.
  Last November, women came out in droves to say, Keep your laws off 
our bodies, out of our personal lives, and out from between women and 
their doctor.
  This bill that a man sponsored and that an all-male panel has 
approved jeopardizes the health and well-being of women, and only 
women; it is indifferent to the rights of women, and only women; and it 
is callous to the concerns of women, and only women.
  I can promise you that women will long remember this. They will 
remember it today, they will remember it tomorrow, and they will 
remember it at the polls when they select their Representatives.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, if we can defeat the previous question, 
I will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to 
hold a vote on the Student Loan Relief Act. If Congress doesn't act 
next month, the undergraduate students across this country will see a 
doubling of their student loan interest rates.
  To discuss our proposal, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question 
so that the House can take up the Student Loan Relief Act, H.R. 1595, 
which is a bill that the American people are truly concerned about and 
watching Congress to see whether or not we do the right thing. In 12 
days, as this chart shows, the subsidized Stafford student loan rate 
will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. This will add to the debt 
burden of the average college student with a Stafford student loan 
portfolio of about approximately $5,000.
  Today, the average student is leaving college with an average debt 
level of about $25,000 to $26,000. We know the big numbers: $1.1 
trillion in student loan debt now in the U.S. economy, more than credit 
cards and more than used cars. Yet we are standing here 12 days before 
the doubling of this rate and we are debating a bill which is right in 
the middle of the polarized gridlock politics that the American voters 
rejected soundly in the last election rather than dealing with the 
bread-and-butter issues that really matter to young Americans and to 
middle class families all across this country.
  The fact of the matter is we know young people in this country need 
to get a post-high school degree, whether it's a 2-year degree or a 4-
year degree. The Stafford student loan program is the workhorse of 
providing affordable loans for millions of students, and 7.5 million 
students use the Stafford subsidized loan program. Yet, if we don't act 
in 12 days, those 7.5 million are going to see their interest rates 
double to 6.8 percent.
  Now, we may hear from the other side, well, we took up a bill on May 
23, H.R. 1911, a bill with a variable rate that we now know from the 
Congressional Budget Office who issued a report this past Monday will 
be, in fact, worse than if we did nothing and allowed the rate to go to 
6.8 percent. That's been not only verified by the Congressional Budget 
Office but also by the Education Trust and The Institute for College 
Access and Success, a nonpartisan group funded by the Bill and Melinda 
Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Trust, and it states very clearly:

       If passed, it will lead to higher rates on all types of 
     Federal student and parent loans than if Congress did nothing 
     at all.

  We need to act on H.R. 1595. 187 Members have signed a discharge 
petition, and it is time to act to protect America's college students.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, as our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle know full well and as our colleague from Connecticut has 
acknowledged, the House has passed a bill to take care of the issue of 
student loan rates doubling on July 1; however, the Senate has refused 
to act on the bill. What we passed was what the President asked for in 
his budget, and he has suddenly flip-flopped on the issue and doesn't 
support it anymore.
  The House has done its job. We're now waiting for the Senate and the 
President to acknowledge that they have a responsibility in this area. 
We've not been frivolous about this. We are not ignoring the issue.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on July 1, young women in college face 
a doubling of Federal student loan interest rates; but instead of 
legislating the rights of our daughters and granddaughters to access 
safe and legal reproductive care, we should be ensuring that the cost 
of college doesn't skyrocket at the end of the month.
  When it comes to the most personal and important decisions a woman 
will ever make, we deserve the privacy and freedom to make the decision 
that's right for us. No matter how many women the majority trots out to 
advance their agenda, their attempt to take away our reproductive 
rights will not stand.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the 
previous question and urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to point out that none of the Members on the other side 
of the aisle have even acknowledged the pain that unborn children feel 
or the fact that half of those babies that are being murdered are 
little girls.
  Madam Speaker, life is the most fundamental of all rights. It's 
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, 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've 
been denied. An affront to life for some is an affront to life for 
every one of us.
  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, will be closed and collectively 
deemed one of the darkest chapters in America's history. But until that 
day, it remains a solemn duty to stand up for life.

                              {time}  1440

  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.
  May we, in love, defend the unborn. May we, in humility, confront 
this national sin. And may we mourn what abortion reveals about the 
conscience of our Nation.
  Madam Speaker, we go to extraordinary lengths to save not only human 
beings, but even animals because we value life so much. However, there 
are

[[Page H3719]]

many who do not hold the unborn in the same esteem, and that is tragic 
for more than 1 million unborn babies every year.
  There is nothing more important than protecting voiceless, unborn 
children and their families from the travesty of abortion. Therefore, I 
urge my colleagues to vote for life by voting in favor of this rule and 
the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 266 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. 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. 
     1595) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the 
     reduced interest rate for Federal Direct Stafford Loans. 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1595 as specified in section 3 of this 
     resolution.


        THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS

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

  Ms. FOXX. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 266, if 
ordered, and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 1151.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 196, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 248]

                               YEAS--229

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--196

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman

[[Page H3720]]


     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bonner
     Campbell
     Hunter
     Larsen (WA)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Pascrell
     Rogers (KY)
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  1507

  Messrs. SHERMAN and PAYNE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 193, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 249]

                               YEAS--232

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--193

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bonner
     Campbell
     Hunter
     Larsen (WA)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Pascrell
     Rogers (KY)
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  1516

  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________