Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 87 (Tuesday, June 18, 2013)

[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:

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.

____________________