[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 13, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2892-H2901]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1735, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
   H.R. 36, PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT; PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2048, USA FREEDOM ACT OF 2015; AND PROVIDING FOR 
             CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 255 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 255

       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. 1735) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2016 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, 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 
     Armed Services. 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 adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 36) to amend 
     title 18, United States Code, to protect pain-capable unborn 
     children, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further 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 or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2048) to reform 
     the authorities of the Federal Government to require the 
     production of certain business records, conduct electronic 
     surveillance, use pen registers and trap and trace devices, 
     and use other forms of information gathering for foreign 
     intelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal purposes, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. The amendment printed in part B of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further 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.
       Sec. 4.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of May 14, 2015, or May 15, 2015, for the 
     Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules 
     as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his 
     designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her 
     designee on the designation of any matter for consideration 
     pursuant to this section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 255 provides for general 
debate for H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016; provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 36, the 
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act; and provides for a closed 
rule for consideration of H.R. 2048, the USA FREEDOM Act.
  The rule before us today provides for general debate for H.R. 1735, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, also known 
as the NDAA. The NDAA, which has passed Congress and has been enacted 
for over 50 years in a row, is a vital exercise each year in providing 
for the common defense, one of our most profound constitutional 
responsibilities.
  The NDAA includes over $600 billion in important national security 
funding, providing resources to each of our four military branches, our 
nuclear deterrent, and related agencies. The legislation fully funds 
the President's request for funding for our warfighters overseas and 
includes important steps to advance Department of Defense acquisition 
policies to ensure we are saving taxpayer dollars and stretching our 
precious defense dollars as far as possible.
  H.R. 1735 also includes provisions improving military readiness, 
strengthening our cyber warfare defenses, and holding the line on 
keeping terrorists in cells at Guantanamo Bay, not in our States or 
back on the battlefield.
  This rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2048, the USA 
FREEDOM Act which addresses critical national security investigation 
concerns while making much-needed changes to protect the privacy of 
Americans.
  H.R. 2048 prohibits explicitly the bulk collection of all records 
under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the FISA

[[Page H2893]]

pen register authority, and National Security Letter statutes. This 
provision prevents government overreach by ending the indiscriminate 
collection of records that violates the privacy of all Americans.
  Madam Speaker, this bill also improves transparency, making 
significant FISA interpretations available to the public and requiring 
the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to 
disclose how they use these national security authorities.
  Finally, the USA FREEDOM Act ensures that national security is 
strengthened by closing loopholes that prevented tracking of foreign 
terrorists, narrowly defining which records the Federal Government may 
obtain, and enhancing investigations of international proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction.

                              {time}  1245

  Madam Speaker, I share the concern that our colleagues across the 
aisle have about the return of the young women taken by Boko Haram and 
salute their wearing red today and your wearing red today. However, 
Madam Speaker, I chose to wear pink today because we are dealing with a 
very sensitive issue about unborn children.
  Today's rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 36, the Pain-
Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This is important legislation for 
the House to consider, particularly this week, 2 years after the 
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.
  He killed these children using 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.
  A neonatologist testified to the grand jury that one of the babies, 
known as Baby Boy A, spent his few moments of life in excruciating 
pain. Late-term abortions are agonizingly painful, and they are 
happening all too often in our Nation. Americans have been asking how 
different those abortions are from Gosnell's ``snipping.'' Thankfully, 
they know the answer to those questions and support protecting these 
nearly fully developed lives.
  A March 2013 poll conducted by The Polling Company found that 64 
percent of the public supports a law prohibiting an abortion after 20 
weeks when an unborn baby can feel pain. Supporters included 63 percent 
of women and 47 percent of those who identified themselves as pro-
choice.
  That finding was not an outlier; it is representative of the public's 
true beliefs. According to a 2013 Gallup poll, 64 percent of Americans 
support prohibiting second trimester abortions, and 80 percent support 
prohibiting third trimester abortions.
  Even The Huffington Post found in 2013 that 59 percent of Americans 
support limiting abortions after 20 weeks; and Cosmopolitan magazine, 
not known for its traditional values, had an article recently all about 
the impact of smoking by pregnant women on their ``unborn babies.'' 
They weren't blobs of tissue or even fetuses, but ``unborn children.''
  Those unborn children can feel pain, which is why they are provided 
anesthesia when surgery is performed on them in the womb. They can even 
survive outside the womb, with The New York Times reporting just last 
week on a study that The New England Journal of Medicine published that 
found that 25 percent of children born prematurely at the stage of 
pregnancy covered by this legislation survive.
  There are countless stories--no longer so uncommon we would call them 
miracles--of children surviving and thriving, such as Micah Pickering, 
who was born right at the stage when this legislation would protect 
other children in the womb and is now a ``spunky almost 3-year-old,'' 
according to his mother.
  The legislation we consider today, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child 
Protection Act, is carefully written to advance the consensus of a 
majority of Americans that these late-term abortions should cease.
  In order to maintain that consensus, the bill includes provisions 
allowing abortions in cases of rape or where the life of the mother is 
in danger. It also provides strong protections for minors who have been 
sexually assaulted, stopping abortionists from ignoring child abuse 
that enters their facility.
  Most importantly, it protects the lives of well-developed, pain-
capable children who could well survive outside the womb. America is 
one of only seven nations that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks, 
which includes such well-known human rights leaders as North Korea, 
China, and Vietnam. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would 
finally put an end to that.
  Madam Speaker, I commend this rule and the underlying bills to my 
colleagues for their support, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague yielding me the time.
  I rise today frustrated and angry by the state of affairs in the 
United States. Last night, an Amtrak train derailed which was traveling 
over the busiest track in the Nation. That tragedy killed at least six 
and injured more than 200 who were hospitalized, just days before the 
highway trust fund is about to expire. Republicans will spend billions 
of dollars in this bill on war, but let the roads and rails and bridges 
rot.
  Thirty-eight billion dollars was concealed in a very clever way in 
the Defense bill under the OCO account because it does not affect the 
budget cap; but what are we going to do about the busiest corridor in 
the United States? Nothing--as a matter of fact, according to Politico, 
on this very day, the Republicans in the Appropriations Committee, on a 
21-29 vote, defeated an amendment offered by the ranking member, David 
Price, that would have significantly boosted funding for several 
transportation programs, including Amtrak, the very day after this.
  The Baltimore Sun tells us that the operations advisory commission 
for the Northeast corridor says that the estimation for loss of service 
on the corridor for a single day would cost $100 million in travel 
delays and lost productivity.
  Six people have died; 200 were hospitalized. Add the medical cost on 
all of that. It will only take a week or a little bit more to use up 
the entire account for the amount of money the Appropriations Committee 
is willing to put into Amtrak.
  As we look at that, what we do here--saving money and cutting out and 
dropping everything--has to be the costs that are borne outside by 
people with their medical costs by the delay by being unable to get the 
goods and things to market. If I have ever seen a case of pennywise and 
dollar foolish, this one is it.
  Moreover than that, that isn't even our discussion today. What I 
really want to talk about here is that the majority's priorities are so 
misplaced that they cannot even govern this body in an organized way.
  Today, under this single rule--one rule--we will consider a 20-week 
abortion ban, which is unconstitutional, and we know it, but they are 
going to do it anyway; we will consider bulk data collection under the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; and then we will also do the 
general debate for the National Defense Authorization Act. We have an 
hour to do this rule to talk about those. These bills have no 
commonality at all, and there is no need at all to entwine them in a 
single rule.
  The rule is called a grab bag rule that governs the floor debate for 
two or more unrelated pieces of legislation. Debate in this Chamber 
suffers when many unrelated bills are crammed into a single rule. It is 
legislative malpractice, Madam Speaker, practiced here all the time and 
getting worse term after term.
  Under this procedure, arguments for and against multiple measures are 
interspersed, which leads to disjointed, fragmented, and confusing 
debates. Furthermore, each bill does not get its due consideration, 
which harms not only the Rules Committee, but the House of 
Representatives, and, above all, the American people; but the most 
egregious use of our time is prioritizing attacking women's health over 
everything else that is going on in the country.

  This majority has introduced yet another 20-week abortion ban that 
prohibits abortions after 20 weeks based

[[Page H2894]]

on a widely disputed scientific claim that a fetus can feel pain at 
that point in time in a pregnancy, but this is not the first time we 
have seen this bill. It is not even the first time we have seen it in 
this Congress, which is only 5 months old.
  Just weeks ago, on the 42nd anniversary of the Supreme Court's 
landmark ruling on Roe v. Wade, the majority prepared to bring this 
bill to the floor, but it was so odious, the provision in it so 
offensive, that even women in the majority's own party balked and 
rebelled against their leadership. The uproar was so loud that, in the 
middle of the night, the majority pulled the bill from the floor.
  The first version was bad enough. It included abortion exceptions for 
rape and incest only to reported cases of rape. Within 48 hours, a 
woman had to go to report that to law enforcement, or she could not be 
eligible for an abortion. The new bill is worse because it says that 
she has to have 48 hours of counseling, but she can't get it at the 
hospital where the abortion would be done, so she has to go from pillar 
to post.
  The most odious thing that they have done is the unmitigated cruelty 
to the victims of incest. They put an age limit on it. Can you imagine 
that? It is unbelievable.
  I know that this bill will not go anywhere. I doubt the Senate will 
even take it up. It is simply something to appease people who believe 
anything that they hear about this, such as there is abortion on 
demand. There is not.
  Third trimester abortions are all medically necessary, as one of my 
colleagues mentioned this morning. If you haven't talked to any of 
those women, you don't know what they have been through. In almost 
every one of those cases, they desperately want that baby, but 
sometimes, they have no brains. Sometimes, they are born with no 
organs. They are unable to survive.
  Many times, there is a case of a woman who can preserve her 
reproductive system so that she can have more children. How incredibly 
cruel it is that we want to take that decision away from the woman and 
her doctor--whomever she wants to consult, but certainly scientific 
laws ought to apply--and put it in the hands of legislators.
  Maybe we should decide who should have gall bladder operations, or 
maybe we should decide whether broken legs should be treated; we are 
all-seeing here. What happened here today is disgustingly cruel, as I 
said before.
  The Supreme Court has long held that a woman has the unequivocal 
right to choose abortion care until the point of fetal viability, which 
is largely accepted by the scientific community to be 24 weeks.
  A 20-week abortion ban brazenly challenges the Supreme Court's 
standards and deliberately attempts to push the law earlier and earlier 
into a woman's pregnancy because that is the number one issue, and we 
have been told that.
  When I started working on this issue four decades ago, I surely 
thought, by now, we would not decide whether or not a woman can make a 
decision about her own health.
  How awful it is that, just less than a week after Mother's Day, when 
we all are reminded how brilliant and how wonderful they were, how 
farseeing, how great in their judgment, but we decide that every other 
woman in the country has not the ability to make decisions for herself.
  Enough of these insults, enough of practicing medicine without a 
license, let's get to the business at hand and fix the rotting 
infrastructure in the United States of America and make it safe for our 
fellow citizens to get to work.
  The idea that all those people are wounded and hurt today and died 
because we failed to keep up the tracks in the United States of 
America, which was known worldwide for its infrastructure and now 
spends barely a pittance on trying to maintain those old tracks--and 
the mayor of New York had just said he has bridges in New York that are 
over 100 years old.
  I have the same thing in my district. I have bridges over the Erie 
Canal. Fire trucks can't even go over them and haven't been able to for 
the last decade.
  But, no, we are not going to talk about that. We are going to talk 
about making women do what we want them to do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Probably throughout the day, we will be setting the record straight 
on things my colleague has said. Victims of rape can get counseling 
from a hospital that performs abortion; but most egregiously, Madam 
Speaker, the arguments raised across the aisle about incest are 
astounding.
  Let me be clear. If a woman is sexually assaulted and that leads to a 
pregnancy, there is a rape exception in this legislation that applies, 
regardless of the family status of her aggressor or the age of the 
victim.

                              {time}  1300

  As the legislation includes an exception for all women who are 
sexually assaulted, those across the aisle who raise incest appear to 
believe we should provide special exemptions under Federal law to 
individuals in consensual incestuous relationships. That boggles the 
mind. This objection is a shameful distraction from the important 
debate we are having about protecting well-developed, unborn children 
from being ripped apart in the womb.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Huelskamp).
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. I appreciate the work of my colleague from North 
Carolina.
  Madam Speaker, 2 years ago today, America was awakened to the horrors 
of the abortion industry as abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted of 
murdering three innocent, newborn infants in his filthy abortion 
complex, and one of his former employees reported nearly 100 other 
living babies who were also murdered.
  Gosnell cut the spines of crying 5-month-old babies who survived his 
first attempts to kill them, and our human dignity makes it impossible 
to ignore that image. He further brutalized the mothers--killing two of 
them by drug overdose; with filthy, unsanitary instruments; and by 
perforating their wombs and bowels.
  It is no less painful for babies to have their spines snipped before 
birth than by Gosnell after birth. By 5 months, if not before, babies 
can feel pain--intense pain. It is simply barbaric to allow Gosnell or 
anyone else to rip these babies apart, limb by limb, whether they are 
in or out of their mothers' wombs.
  That is why we must take a stand today to protect the defenseless 
unborn and pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend for her work on this bill that 
shows she is strong and protective of women.
  Madam Speaker, I want to speak about where this bill started.
  The District of Columbia was the stalking horse for H.R. 7 until 
women's groups and I protested vigorously.
  Sorry, colleagues.
  We may have chased the majority from the D.C. 20-week abortion bill 
only to see them now target all of the Nation's women with an even 
worse bill. However, not even the Republican majority can overrule the 
Roe v. Wade holding that H.R. 36 is unconstitutional for lowering the 
Court's as well as scientific findings on when a fetus becomes viable.
  H.R. 36 focuses on a previability fetus, but it excludes any 
protection for the health of the woman involved. Shamefully, even 
traumatized rape victims are punished further by steps that require 
that they virtually prove they were raped before they can get an 
abortion.
  My colleagues, now is the time to oppose H.R. 36. The Supreme Court 
already has.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Madam Speaker, this is a very commonsense bill, H.R. 36, which is 
being presented by my colleague Mr. Franks from Arizona.
  Why do we have to do this? I am going to tell you something.
  It is because scientific evidence now shows that unborn babies can 
feel pain

[[Page H2895]]

by 20 weeks postfertilization and, likely, even earlier. It is because 
a late-term abortion is an excruciatingly painful and inhumane act 
against children who are waiting to be born and against their mothers. 
It is because women who terminate pregnancies at 20 weeks are 35 times 
more likely to die from abortion than they are in the first trimester, 
and they are 91 times more likely to die from abortion at 21 weeks or 
beyond. It is because, after 5 months into a pregnancy, the baby is 
undeniably a living, growing human, and the government's first duty is 
to protect innocent life. It is because, overwhelmingly, most 
Americans--and I am talking about men and women, young and old--support 
legislation to protect these innocent people. It is because the hideous 
case of Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia is a brutal reminder of what can 
occur without this type of legislation in place.
  H.R. 36 would federally ban almost all abortions from being performed 
beyond the 20th week of pregnancy with exceptions for instances of 
rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake.
  I want to tell my colleagues to just think of how little effort it 
would be today to take their voting cards out, to put them in the 
machine, and to press on the green button. By doing that, they are 
saying ``yes'' to protecting the most vulnerable people in our society 
from going through unbelievable amounts of pain.
  Isn't it amazing that, in America's House, we have to pass 
legislation to protect the most innocent life? This is incredible that 
we have to even come forward and debate this. My goodness. This is just 
so intuitive of who we are, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as 
human beings. We have to protect the unborn because they cannot protect 
themselves. Vote ``yes'' on this today. Let's make sure that our 
children are not subjected to this pain and that their mothers are not 
subjected to the same pain and to the resulting loss of life.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), co-chair of the Pro-Choice 
Caucus.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, in 6 days, the highway trust fund 
expires. So what is Congress spending its time doing today? Of course, 
it is debating a bill that will limit a woman's access to a safe and 
legal medical procedure and that will place politicians in a place they 
should never be--between a woman and her doctor. Ask your mother, your 
sister, your daughter, your wife, or your neighbor, and she will tell 
you that women don't need politicians' interference when making their 
own healthcare decisions. Yet here we are again today, debating a bill 
that does just that.
  Everybody remembers that this bill was pulled from the floor in 
January because it was so extreme, but, today, the bill that is on the 
floor is even worse than the bill that they pulled in January.
  H.R. 36 is particularly harmful to victims of rape and incest. Women 
who have had unbelievable trauma would be effectively forced to get 
permission before they could seek the medical treatment that they 
needed to regain some control over their bodies, their health, and 
their safety. They would have to jump through complex and punitive 
legal hoops before they could have the procedures that they need. 
Therefore, somebody who has been victimized once would end up being 
victimized again by our government.
  Let's be clear. The new provisions in this law include a number of 
burdensome requirements on rape and incest victims:
  First, there is a waiting period of 48 hours for an adult rape 
survivor;
  Second, there is a requirement that a minor who is a victim of rape 
or incest would give written proof after 20 weeks that she reported the 
crime to law enforcement or to a government agency. A minor who is a 
victim of incest has to do this. There is language that specifies that 
the counseling or medical treatment described above may not be from a 
health center that provides abortion services. So let's say she goes to 
her doctor, and she gets counseling, but someone else in that medical 
practice provides abortion. She is out of luck. If she doesn't thread 
that needle, too bad. She can't get it.
  Perhaps the most outrageous thing about this bill, though, is the 
fundamental disrespect that it shows to women. It assumes that women 
will just wake up in this country after 20 weeks of pregnancy, decide 
to have abortions, and then lie about being victims of rape or incest. 
That view is just wrong, and it is offensive to women.
  By the way, as Ms. Slaughter mentioned, this bill is patently 
unconstitutional, and even if it didn't get vetoed by the President, it 
would be struck down by the Supreme Court. I suggest that we vote 
``no'' now and that we respect women's ability to make their own health 
decisions.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the claim that minors have to report to law 
enforcement is false. They do not need to report anything to law 
enforcement. The law provides that the abortionist must report to 
social services or to law enforcement to ensure that they do not let 
child abuse that comes to their attention continue unchecked.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, this is a bill that is protecting babies 
who can survive outside the womb. These are babies who can feel pain. 
Knowing that this institution won't stand up for those vulnerable 
children in our society is a sad day for this institution.
  I have seven children. This is my sixth. This is MariV. This picture 
was taken with the two of us the day she was born. She is now 5 years 
old, and she is gregarious, awesome, fun--the most beautiful joy in our 
family. The way the law stands today is that, the day before this 
picture was taken, it would have been legal to have aborted MariV.
  I want to talk about women's rights. This is a little girl. This is a 
little baby girl who will one day grow up to be a woman. Let's stand up 
and protect this little girl, not the day that she was born only, but 
also the day that she was in the womb. Let's protect her from the pain 
of abortion, from the silent screams of those babies who were aborted 
in the womb who aren't heard because they don't have voices in this 
institution defending them.
  Madam Speaker, I listen to the floor debate day after day, whether in 
this Chamber or on C-SPAN, and I hear the other side talk about how 
they fight for the forgotten, how they fight for the defenseless, how 
they fight for the voiceless, and they pound their chests, and they 
stomp their feet. You don't have anyone in our society that is more 
defenseless than these little babies.
  I believe in life at conception. I know my colleagues are not going 
to agree with me on that, but can't we come together as an institution 
and say that we are going to stand with little babies who feel pain? 
that we are going to stand with little babies who can survive outside 
the womb--ones who don't have lobbyists, who don't have money, who 
can't rally, who can't offer contributions to one's campaign? Don't we 
stand with those little babies?

  If you stand with the defenseless, with the voiceless, you have to 
stand with little babies. Don't talk to me about cruelty in our bill 
when you look at little babies being dismembered and feeling 
excruciating pain. If we can't stand to defend these children, what do 
we stand for in this institution? What do we stand for in America if we 
can't stand up for the most defenseless and voiceless among us?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I want to just correct my friend from 
North Carolina, who said that nothing has to be reported to law 
enforcement.
  It reads: if pregnancy is the result of rape against a minor or 
incest against a minor and if the rape or incest has been reported to 
either, one, a government agency legally authorized to act on reports 
of child abuse or, two, law enforcement.
  I hope my colleague stands corrected.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank my colleague from New York.
  Madam Speaker and Members, I am just so perplexed by our willingness 
every time an abortion issue is brought up that we don the equivalent 
of a white coat, that we believe that we are doctors in this august 
body, that we should be making decisions on behalf of women who are 
pregnant and on behalf of their spouses and of their physicians, and 
that we know better than

[[Page H2896]]

everyone else. If we had women in America who saw their doctors as 
frequently as we talk about their health on the House floor, boy, they 
would have a lot of access to doctors.
  Four months ago, this bill was taken up, and many of the women in the 
Republican caucus thought it went too far, so it has been amended a 
little bit, and now they think it doesn't go too far. Let me tell you 
what ``too far'' is.
  First of all, remember that only 1.5 percent of abortions take place 
after 20 weeks. They take place for a lot of personal and profoundly 
physical reasons, and the decision is made by the physician in 
conjunction with the pregnant woman and her family. What in the heck 
are we doing putting our noses in their lives?

                              {time}  1315

  It is constitutional, Members; it is legal in this country to have an 
abortion.
  Now, rape. If you are raped, and it is after 20 weeks, you have to go 
to a law enforcement officer or you have to have mental health 
services.
  Now, let me remind you, of the sexual assaults that take place in the 
military, 81 percent of them are never reported. When you are raped, 
the last thing you want to do is relive that experience, to be 
victimized again because you are so offended and feel so violated. And 
now we are going to say, whether you are 17 or 19, you are going to 
have to go report this to law enforcement or you are going to have to 
go to a mental health officer.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the additional 
time.
  Beyond that, we are saying if there is an anomaly and your fetus is 
not going to be able to survive as an infant outside the womb that you 
are going to have to carry that to term.
  Ladies and gentlemen, let me say this: I have had two abortions. One 
was at 10 weeks, when the fetus no longer had a heartbeat, and I was 
told, Well, you are going to have to wait a few days before you have 
that D&C. A D&C is an abortion. I said, I can't. I am in so much pain. 
I have just lost this baby that I wanted, and you are going to make me 
carry around a dead fetus for 2 days? I finally got that D&C in time. 
At 17 weeks, I lost another baby. It was an extraordinarily painful 
experience. It was an abortion.
  Women who go through these experiences go through them with so much 
pain and anguish, and here we are as Members of this body, trying to 
don another white coat. I think we should put the speculums down. I 
think we should stop playing doctor.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise today because I believe that all 
human life is worth protecting. Each of us are here today because we 
all stand for something greater. We believe that all human life is 
precious. We believe that each life is worth living, that life deserves 
respect and protection, and every human being has equal worth and 
dignity. That is why everybody matters. That is why everyone counts.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act protects life, empowers 
women, and will save lives. This legislation represents the will of the 
American people. Over 60 percent of Americans support protecting unborn 
children after 20 weeks.
  A critical component of this legislation ensures that women receive 
counseling or medical care for a traumatic event that precipitated her 
pregnancy prior to obtaining an abortion. Because the pain of an 
abortion is felt by both mother and child, a woman who feels that 
abortion is her only option over halfway through her pregnancy deserves 
medical treatment and emotional assistance beyond what can be provided 
by an abortionist.
  We have a responsibility, as the elected body representing our 
constituents, to protect the most vulnerable among us and ensure that 
women facing unwanted pregnancies do not face judgment or condemnation 
but have positive support structures and access to health care to help 
them through their pregnancies. This bill protects life.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  One of our former colleagues, Barney Frank from Massachusetts, made 
one of the most telling statements, I think, that many of the people 
who are speaking today obviously, by their actions, believe that life 
begins at conception but ends at birth, because these are often the 
very same people who refuse to fund schools, who cut back on food 
stamps, who pay no attention to children who grow up under unseemly, 
unsanitary, and dreadful conditions, who take away from their parents 
the unemployment insurance on which they might be able to live and keep 
the children together.
  That callous disregard of the living makes the piety of the statement 
of how they love life a little bit odd. You have to practice that for 
the living as well. The children and the neglected in this country, the 
rates are becoming appalling. The number of children who live under the 
poverty line in America, who suffer every day, frankly, who get the 
only food they get often at school, if they are able to get there, 
should really somehow soften the hearts of all the people who want to 
make sure that every fetus is born.
  Nobody has to have an abortion, but for women who need it for medical 
reasons and are protected by the Constitution and make that decision--
and how awful it is--and I have to echo what Ms. Speier said and what I 
said earlier, the idea that Members of the House of Representatives or 
any other legal body--I have been in three. Many have usually carried 
this debate and decided what women should do, but in the three 
legislatures I have been in, I have seen people with no medical 
experience of any sort, never talk to anybody who was in the position, 
but I also do know people who change their minds when their daughters 
perhaps got into a position where they had to make that decision or 
not.
  So, for heaven's sakes, let's examine really what we do here in this 
House of Representatives. As you say what you are going to do, tell me 
that you are going to make sure that children are fed, that you are 
going to make sure that children are housed decently, that you are 
going to make sure that they are able to afford their education, and 
that the health care they are going to need is going to be there for 
them so they have the opportunity to grow up into a healthy, strong 
American that you are talking about, because the actions belie it.
  I will never forget the pain that we suffered in here while doing 
away with the unemployment insurance. People lost their homes, gave up 
almost everything. In some cases they sent their children to live with 
relatives. We can't divorce this debate today from that reality in 
America.
  Go visit in your districts some of the children who live that way. Go 
into some of the poor areas and see what their housing is like. See 
what kind of nutrition that they have, and then it makes it much more 
palatable, I think, to understand that real point of view. But isn't a 
piece a whole piece, and what it really comes down to is that once 
people are born in this country that we are our brother's keeper, and 
Hillary Clinton was absolutely right: it does take a village to raise a 
child. Do your part on that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, 2 years ago today 
Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder, 
conspiracy to kill, and involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to life 
imprisonment.
  Even though the news of Gosnell's child slaughter was largely 
suppressed by the mainstream media, many of my colleagues may remember 
that Dr. Gosnell operated a large Philadelphia abortion clinic where 
women died and countless babies were dismembered or chemically 
destroyed, often by having their spinal cord snipped, all gruesome 
procedures causing excruciating pain to the victim.

  Today, the House considers landmark legislation authored by 
Congressman Trent Franks to protect unborn children beginning at the 
age of 20 weeks postfertilization from these pain-filled abortions.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is needed now more than

[[Page H2897]]

ever because there are Gosnells all over America, dismembering and 
decapitating pain-capable babies for profit: men like Steven Brigham of 
New Jersey, an interstate abortion operator--some 35 aborted babies 
were found in his freezer; men like Leroy Carhart, caught on videotape 
joking about his abortion toolkit, complete with, as he said, a pickaxe 
and drill bit, while describing a 3-day-long late-term abortion 
procedure and the infant victim as ``putting meat in a Crock-Pot.''
  Some euphemistically call this choice, but a growing number of 
Americans rightly regard it as violence against children, and huge 
majorities--60 percent, according to the November Quinnipiac poll--want 
it stopped.
  Fresh impetus for this bill came from a huge study of nearly 5,000 
babies, preemies, published last week in The New England Journal of 
Medicine. The next day The New York Times article titled ``Premature 
Babies May Survive At 22 Weeks If Treated'' touted the Journal's 
extraordinary findings of survival and hope.
  Just imagine, Madam Speaker, preemies at 20 weeks are surviving, as 
technology and medical science advances. Alexis Hutchinson, featured in 
The New York Times story, is today a healthy 5-year-old who originally 
weighed in at a mere 1.1 pounds. Thus, the babies we seek to protect 
from harm today may indeed survive if treated humanely, with expertise 
and with an abundance of compassion.
  I urge support for the legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to read from patients' stories that I have here today, 
starting with the fact that women need access to abortion care later in 
pregnancy for a variety of reasons and must have the ability to make 
decisions that are right for them, in consultation with their 
healthcare providers and those they trust. A woman's health, not 
politics, should be the basis of important medical decisions.
  Kris from Indiana. When Kris went on her 20-week ultrasound, she 
thought she would learn the sex of her pregnancy but, instead, found 
out that her fetus had cystic hygroma and fetal hydrops. The doctor 
advised her there was no chance of survival. The only two options were 
to wait until she miscarried, which would risk her health and her 
future fertility, or to safely terminate the pregnancy. Kris said it 
was a hard decision, but she was happy she was able to make it with her 
family and those she trusted. Because of a 20-week ban in Indiana, she 
had to travel to Ohio to obtain her abortion care. If H.R. 36 were 
passed, she would have no place to go.
  Lorna from Florida. Lorna is a mother of three, with a number of 
health issues, including lupus, a tumor on her upper intestines, and 
two uterine abrasions. When Lorna found out she was pregnant, she knew 
immediately that the carrying of the pregnancy to term was not an 
option for her. She had hemorrhaged while giving birth to her last 
child, and her sister, who also had lupus, had died after giving birth. 
Lorna didn't want to risk another potentially dangerous delivery and 
potentially leave her three children without a mother, and she went to 
the closest abortion care facility, got a free ultrasound, but was 
unable to obtain an abortion because of her health issues. The clinic 
recommended that Lorna obtain abortion care in a hospital setting, but 
due to her complex condition, the closest hospital that could handle 
her healthcare needs was in California. With help from the clinic and 
the NAF Hotline, Lorna was able to fly more than 2,000 miles to 
California to obtain the abortion care she needed at almost 22 weeks 
pregnant. She would not be able to do that under this bill.
  Josephine from Florida. Josephine recently moved from Texas to 
Florida with two children to escape her abusive partner after he 
threatened to kill her. While trying to create a new stable home for 
her children, Josephine was raped and became pregnant. She couldn't 
afford to pay for her abortion, nor could she arrange for 
transportation to get to the closest provider, who was more than 80 
miles away, so Josephine attempted to terminate the pregnancy on her 
own by ingesting poison. She ended up being hospitalized, needing 
several blood transfusions, and was still pregnant. By the time she was 
able to gather enough resources to cover her abortion procedure and 
transportation, she was 23 weeks pregnant and would not have been able 
to do that under this law.
  Mya lives in Georgia. She and her mom tried borrowing money from 
friends and family to pay for her abortion but couldn't gather enough 
resources in time for her appointment, so they had to delay the care 
and reschedule. By the time Mya was able to raise enough money to make 
her appointment, she found out she was further along in the pregnancy 
than she expected and was now 21 weeks pregnant. She was able to access 
care, but if H.R. 36 were the law, she would have been prohibited.
  Niecy from Florida was raped by a man she thought was her friend. 
When she realized she was pregnant due to the rape, she knew 
immediately she wanted to terminate the pregnancy. As a full-time 
student, she had no income and couldn't tell her mom because she knew 
her mom would try to keep the pregnancy due to her mom's anti-choice 
religious beliefs. Niecy spent 2 months trying to raise enough money to 
pay for her procedure. She had nothing to pawn or sell and was so 
desperate that she even asked the rapist for money, but he refused to 
help her.

                              {time}  1330

  When Niecy was past 20 weeks, she was finally put in touch with the 
NAF Hotline and other funds available to provide the financial money 
that she needed.
  Serafina from South Carolina started a new job and was working to 
build a stable life for her and her two kids in a homeless shelter when 
she found out she was pregnant. She decided terminating her pregnancy 
was the best decision for herself and her family. They had no home.
  Unfortunately, Serafina found out that she was already more than 20 
weeks pregnant. She had no items to pawn or sell, living in a shelter. 
Thanks to a friend willing to help her with money and a ride--and 
support--Serafina was able to get the care she needed, which she could 
not do if H.R. 36 were passed.
  Gloria from Washington moved in with her parents in order to 
financially support them when she was faced with an unwanted pregnancy.
  Do you notice in all of this, the men involved don't have to pay 
anything or do anything at all? Isn't that a strange circumstance?
  When Gloria was faced with the unwanted pregnancy, she was fortunate 
to be working, but was only making minimum wage and had no paid sick 
leave and was still in her 90-day new job probationary period. Even 
after receiving her paycheck, she didn't have enough funds to continue 
supporting her family to travel to the nearest abortion care provider 3 
hours away and pay for the procedure itself.
  Eventually, she decided not to pay her other bills in order to have 
enough funds to cover her travel and care, but then she ran into 
another barrier: her boss. Because the provider was more than 150 miles 
away, she needed to take time off work, but her employer wouldn't allow 
her to do so. The situation placed the job she desperately needed in 
jeopardy and, fortunately, her boss eventually relented and she was 
able to obtain the abortion care she needed.
  I will rest my case, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to first express my deepest and sincerest 
gratitude to every last person who played a role in the creation and 
development of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act now before 
us on this unique and historic day.
  Madam Speaker, we really understand what we are all talking about 
here. Protecting little pain-capable unborn babies really is not a 
Republican issue or a Democrat issue. It really is a test of our basic 
humanity and who we are as a human family.
  I would just hope that Members of Congress, as well as all Americans, 
will go to paincapable.com and see for themselves what technology is 
now upon us in 2015; that unborn children

[[Page H2898]]

entering their sixth month of pregnancy are capable of feeling pain is 
now beyond question.
  The real question that remains is: Will those of us privileged to 
live and breathe in this, the land of the free and the home of the 
brave, finally come together and protect mothers and their little 
innocent pain-capable unborn babies from monsters like Kermit Gosnell? 
That is the question, Madam Speaker.
  God help us to do it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam Speaker, I stand here as a proud sponsor of the 
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This is strong, commonsense 
legislation focused on protecting the lives of unborn children and 
their mothers, and I am very happy that this new language is even 
stronger than the original bill in January.
  As a doctor, I know--and I can attest--that this bill is backed by 
scientific research showing that babies can indeed feel pain at 20 
weeks, if not before. That is why it is so important we stand up for 
life and stand up for this human rights issue. This is a pro-life 
effort that deserves bipartisan support.
  I fully urge passage of this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Benishek).
  Mr. BENISHEK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rights of 
the unborn and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule for the 
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
  I, along with many of my constituents in northern Michigan, believe 
that life inside the womb is just as precious as life outside the womb 
and that it must be protected. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection 
Act will prevent abortions from occurring after the point at which many 
scientific studies have demonstrated that children in the womb can 
actually feel pain. All children, even the unborn, have the absolute 
right to life, and we need to do our utmost to protect the most 
defenseless among us.
  I served as a doctor in northern Michigan, where I was able to 
witness the miracle of new life in the delivery room. Because of this, 
and because of my experience as a father and as a grandfather, I have 
made protecting the rights of the unborn my priority while serving in 
Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, as a medical doctor, I took an oath to 
protect lives. As a cardiothoracic surgeon for many years, I worked day 
and night to save lives in the operating room. Today, I stand proudly 
with my colleagues here on the House floor to defend the lives of those 
poor, innocent unborn children who don't have anybody else to stand up 
to defend them.
  The scientific evidence is clear: unborn babies feel pain. They feel 
pain at 20 weeks postfertilization. This bill bans late-term abortions, 
with very limited exceptions.
  According to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the United States is 
currently one of only seven countries worldwide, including North Korea 
and China, that allows elective late-term abortions.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates enacting this 
bill will save 2,750 lives each year. Twenty-four States, including my 
home State of Louisiana, have already acted to ban these late-term 
abortions.
  I urge my colleagues to be compassionate. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act so that unborn 
lives in all 50 States are protected from painful late-term abortions.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
  Mrs. NOEM. Madam Speaker, today, I rise in support of the rule for 
H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This is a strong 
bill that prevents abortions after 20 weeks, except in certain 
circumstances, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill today.

  As a mother of three, I know the worry and anxiety that comes along 
with carrying a child. And many times, that worry doesn't end after 
birth. I still think about my children with concern every day, and I 
understand the difficulties and the decisions that many women have 
during this time.
  Motherhood is a big responsibility and a huge change. As a community, 
we need to help women through this time. But we also have the 
responsibility to come together as a country and protect the most 
innocent and the vulnerable among us.
  In this bill, we are talking about protecting unborn babies that are 
already 20 weeks old and mothers who are halfway through their 
pregnancy. That is about 5 months. At this stage, many women already 
have a baby bump and they are wearing maternity clothing. The baby can 
be as long as a banana is and kicking and moving around, even to the 
point where the mother will feel those kicks and that movement.
  More importantly, this is the stage where we know the baby can feel 
pain and could be viable outside the womb with proper care. In fact, 
there is evidence that the pain that the unborn baby feels is even more 
intense than what a young child or an adult would feel because their 
nervous system isn't developed enough to block that pain.
  The majority of women in the United States are with us on this bill. 
We must protect these innocent lives when they are the most vulnerable 
and sensitive among us to feeling pain.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
  Scientific evidence has demonstrated that by 20 weeks, unborn babies 
are able to feel pain; and thanks to ongoing medical improvements, 
premature babies at this stage are increasingly able to live outside 
the womb.
  This bill will protect unborn babies 20 weeks and older from having 
to suffer the excruciating pain of an abortion death. Abortions are 
brutal and extremely painful, where the child is either dismembered or 
poisoned.
  H.R. 36 will punish abortionists who violate the law, while adding 
important additional protections for unborn children and their mothers.
  Every life at this stage is a precious gift from God, and we, as 
Americans, should continue to protect life. This bill will do just 
that.
  Madam Speaker, I urge full support of the rule and for this 
legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In closing, let me continue with Amy from South Carolina. This is 
somewhat different but certainly poignant.
  Amy and her husband, Chris, were very excited about their pregnancy. 
Amy's previous pregnancies had been uncomplicated, so they decided to 
forego genetic testing. However, during the scheduled 20-week 
ultrasound, the couple received the devastating news that their fetus 
had a structural and lethal abnormality known as trisomy 18. They were 
advised to go in for further genetic testing, which was very expensive.
  The results to confirm this diagnosis took an additional 10 to 14 
days, so Amy was past 20 weeks' gestation when she made the decision to 
obtain an abortion. With a nationwide 20-week ban, couples like Chris 
and Amy would not have been able to make decisions that were right for 
themselves and their families.
  Karina from Arizona. The night before Karina called the NAF Hotline, 
she literally slept against a lamppost. She is homeless and makes and 
sells jewelry in order to buy food. She can't afford housing.
  She called the hotline because she realized she was pregnant after 
being raped by the father of her five children. Even though she was 
raped, Arizona Medicaid would not cover her abortion care.

[[Page H2899]]

  She could barely afford food most days and could not afford the cost 
of the abortion, so she had to delay her care. Thanks to multiple 
abortion funds, including the hotline fund and a discount from her care 
provider, she was able to obtain the abortion she needed. This bill 
would stop that.
  Catherine from Georgia. Catherine was planning on carrying her 
pregnancy to term, even though she had a number of pregnancy 
complications, including having to receive blood transfusions 
throughout the pregnancy.
  When she was post 20 weeks pregnant, Catherine found out her fetus 
had an anomaly. She had placed a child up for adoption in the past, so 
she knew that adoption was not an option for her again, nor was 
parenting this pregnancy.
  She started to save money and tried pawning the title to her car but 
was told it was too old and worth nothing. Catherine was able to borrow 
money from friends, and called the hotline to find an abortion 
provider.
  The night before her appointment, she said even though she knew she 
was making the right decision, she was nervous about the protesters who 
would be outside the clinic. The next day, she did not let the 
protesters yelling at her scare her away. She was able to obtain the 
care that she needed.
  Madam Speaker, I have just received news that the death toll has 
risen to seven in the Amtrak tragedy.
  It is past time to focus on the real priorities that face our 
country, and I will insert into the Record articles from The Baltimore 
Sun and Politico that I referred to previously.

                 [From the Baltimore Sun, May 13, 2015]

                 (By Kevin Rector and Jessica Anderson)

       The derailment in Philadelphia of an Amtrak passenger train 
     headed north from Washington and through multiple stops in 
     Maryland left dozens of people injured and killed six--
     including a midshipman from the U.S. Naval Academy in 
     Annapolis.
       The academy notified its brigade of the death early 
     Wednesday morning.
       ``I speak for the brigade of midshipmen, the faculty and 
     staff when I say we are all completely heartbroken by this,'' 
     said Cmdr. John Schofield, an academy spokesman.
       The midshipman, who was not identified, was headed home on 
     leave, the academy said. It did not say where the midshipman 
     boarded the train.
       An online timetable for Train 188, which was carrying a 
     total of 238 passengers and five crew members, shows it had 
     been scheduled to pass through Baltimore's Penn Station and 
     several other stops in Maryland prior to reaching 
     Philadelphia on Tuesday night, though it remained unclear 
     Wednesday morning how many passengers boarded the train at 
     those stations.
       Officials said the train derailed at Frankford Junction in 
     North Philadelphia shortly after 9 p.m. The online schedule 
     had it departing Penn Station at 7:54 p.m.
       The timetable also includes an original scheduled departure 
     from Washington's Union Station at 7:10 p.m., and subsequent 
     departures from New Carrollton at 7:22 p.m. and BWI Thurgood 
     Marshall Airport at 7:37 p.m. prior to the train's reaching 
     Penn Station.
       After Penn Station, the train was scheduled to depart 
     Aberdeen at 8:16 p.m., Wilmington, Del., at 8:43 p.m. and 
     Philadelphia at 9:10 p.m., according to the online schedule.
       Amtrak did not immediately respond to questions early 
     Wednesday as to whether Train 188 made all of its locally 
     scheduled stops and how many people boarded at each, or if it 
     was on schedule.
       On Wednesday morning, Lisa Bonanno stood in Penn Station 
     looking at an electronic train schedule above, trying to 
     figure out how to get to work in Washington. Bonanno said she 
     was aboard Train 188 Tuesday night, but got off in Baltimore 
     before its derailment in Philadelphia.
       ``I was on that train last night,'' she said.
       Bonanno said she would probably end up taking a MARC train 
     to work, given some delays, but that the derailment in 
     Philadelphia would not deter her from riding Amtrak in the 
     future.
       ``This is very unusual,'' she said. ``Driving is so much 
     worse.''
       The derailment happened in Port Richmond, one of five 
     neighborhoods in what's known as Philadelphia's River Wards, 
     dense rowhouse neighborhoods located off the Delaware River. 
     Area resident David Hernandez, whose home is close to the 
     tracks, heard the derailment.
       ``It sounded like a bunch of shopping carts crashing into 
     each other,'' he said.
       The crashing sound lasted a few seconds, he said, and then 
     there was chaos and screaming.
       The derailment was the deadliest incident involving an 
     Amtrak train on the Northeast Corridor since the Maryland 
     collision between an Amtrak train and a Conrail freight 
     engine near Chase, in which 16 people were killed and another 
     175 were injured.
       Officials expect the death toll of Tuesday's derailment 
     could increase as investigators continue to move through the 
     wreckage. The Naval Academy said grief counselors were on 
     hand at its Annapolis campus for grieving midshipmen, faculty 
     and staff.
       Navy Secretary Ray Mabus expressed his condolences to the 
     brigade during previously scheduled morning remarks at the 
     academy, which wrapped up its academic year on Tuesday.
       The Northeast Corridor, which runs from Washington to 
     Boston, is the busiest stretch of passenger rail line in the 
     country, serving 750,000 passengers and 2,000 commuter, 
     intercity and freight trains per day, according to the 
     Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory 
     Commission.
       The commission has estimated that a loss of service on the 
     corridor for a single day would cost $100 million in travel 
     delays and lost productivity. Workers who ride trains on the 
     corridor contribute $50 billion to the U.S. economy annually, 
     the commission has found.
       Locally, the corridor is used for Amtrak and freight trains 
     as well as the Maryland Transit Administration's passenger 
     MARC train service. Baltimore, a traditional railroad town, 
     has some of the system's oldest infrastructure.
       The Baltimore & Potomac Tunnel under West Baltimore, for 
     instance, is 140 years old and a key choke point for Amtrak 
     and other rail traffic, forcing trains to slow their speeds 
     substantially. It has been slated to be replaced, though 
     Amtrak officials have questioned whether funding will be 
     provided to cover the estimated $1.5 billion price tag.
       In a statement on the derailment Tuesday, Mayor Stephanie 
     Rawlings-Blake said her ``heart aches'' for the passengers 
     who were on the train.
       ``Amtrak service is a way of life for so many of our city 
     residents, as well as visitors from all across the Northeast 
     who commute to, from and through our city every day,'' 
     Rawlings-Blake said. ``My prayers are with the families of 
     those who lost their lives in this tragedy. We will support 
     the recovery efforts in every way possible as authorities 
     work to identity the cause of the crash.''
       Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, who called the scene of 
     the derailment ``an absolute disastrous mess'' on Tuesday 
     night, said Wednesday that the train's black box had been 
     recovered and was being analyzed.
       Amtrak said rail service on the busy Northeast Corridor 
     between New York and Philadelphia had been stopped. Nutter, 
     citing the mangled train tracks and downed wires, said there 
     was ``no circumstance under which there would be any Amtrak 
     service this week through Philadelphia.''
       A rapid-response team from the National Transportation 
     Safety Board was on the scene Wednesday, but the cause of the 
     derailment remained unknown. The Federal Railroad 
     Administration also said it was dispatching at least eight 
     investigators to the scene.
       Amtrak canceled two local trains in Baltimore Wednesday, 
     and trains on the Northeast Corridor between Philadelphia and 
     New York were canceled. Those looking for information about 
     family or friends on the train can call Amtrak's incident 
     hotline at 800-523-9101, Amtrak said.
       President Barack Obama expressed shock and sadness at the 
     derailment in a statement in which he noted that Amtrak is 
     ``a way of life for many'' who live and work along the 
     Northeast Corridor. He also thanked police, fire fighters and 
     medical personnel responding to the derailment.
       ``Philadelphia is known as the city of brotherly love--a 
     city of neighborhoods and neighbors--and that spirit of 
     loving-kindness was reaffirmed last night, as hundreds of 
     first responders and passengers lent a hand to their fellow 
     human beings in need,'' Obama said.
       Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, who was in touch with 
     Philadelphia's mayor and other state and local officials 
     about the derailment, thanked the first responders for 
     ``their brave and quick action.''
       ``My thoughts and prayers are with all of those impacted by 
     tonight's train derailment,'' he said in a statement. ``For 
     those who lost their lives, those who were injured, and the 
     families of all involved, this situation is devastating.''
       The impact on the East Coast's broader rail network was 
     unclear. Rob Doolittle, a spokesman for railroad CSX 
     Transportation, said the company had offered assistance to 
     Amtrak but that its own mainline was unaffected and it was 
     not experiencing any significant delays through Philadelphia.
       Richard Scher, a spokesman for the Maryland Port 
     Administration, said the derailment had occurred north of the 
     port's main freight routings but that he was unsure if delays 
     in Philadelphia were affected port cargo transports. A 
     spokesman for railroad Norfolk Southern, which utilizes part 
     of the Northeast Corridor for trains moving out of Maryland 
     into Delaware, did not immediately respond to a request for 
     comment.
       Roel Bouduin, 35, arrived at Penn Station on time Wednesday 
     morning for the beginning of a long day of travel. The 
     resident of Belgium was scheduled to fly from New York to 
     Toronto at 2:30 p.m.
       ``My plan was to take Amtrak. That's not going to work,'' 
     he said as he waited at a ticket counter to get a refund.
       Instead, his friend would take the day off from Johns 
     Hopkins and drive to New York.
       ``We take trains daily at home. Taking a train is safer 
     then taking a car,'' he said.

[[Page H2900]]

       That said, as he rolled his suitcase from the ticket 
     counter, Bouduin said he would enjoy ``a nice drive'' up to 
     New York.
       Many commuters prefer traveling from Baltimore to 
     Washington or New York by train versus by car.
       Reginald Exum is one of those travelers. He said he 
     regularly travels to Washington and New York for his banking 
     job. On Wednesday, though, he was riding to Washington from 
     Penn Station, so the derailment didn't affect his commute.
       ``It's very unfortunate,'' he said. ``I feel bad for their 
     families.''
       In 1996, 11 people were killed when a MARC commuter train 
     rammed into an Amtrak train in Silver Spring. That crash was 
     blamed on the MARC engineer forgetting about a signal warning 
     him to slow down.
       In 1991, another incident occurred in nearly the same spot 
     as the Chase accident in 1987, when an Amtrak train collided 
     with a Conrail coal train--though no one was killed.
       The site of Tuesday night's crash, near curving tracks at 
     Frankford Junction, was also the scene of a previous crash.
       In 1943, 79 people were killed and at least 120 injured 
     when a Pennsylvania Railroad train carrying 541 people--
     including military servicemen returning from weekend 
     furloughs--derailed in the same location, also on its way 
     from Washington to New York.
                                  ____


                   [From Politico Pro, May 13, 2015]

       House Appropriations Republicans voted down an amendment 
     today that would have restored Amtrak funding levels seen in 
     previous years, citing the spending caps under the Budget 
     Control Act.
       ``Any increase in the caps under which we operate, that 
     would go beyond current law, would require an understanding, 
     an agreement, between the White House and the two bodies of 
     Congress,'' Committee Chairman Hal Rogers said, adding that 
     the only White House response he's seen is ``consternation.''
       On a 21-29 vote, the committee defeated the amendment 
     offered by THUD panel ranking member David Price that would 
     have significantly boosted funding for several transportation 
     programs, including Amtrak and WMATA.
       House Appropriations ranking member Nita Lowey countered 
     Republican arguments, saying it's critical that Amtrak be 
     fully funded, especially after last night's deadly 
     derailment.
       ``While we do not know the cause of this accident, we do 
     know that starving rail of funding will not enable safer 
     train travel,'' Lowey said. ``It's very clear that cutting 
     the funding drastically does not help improve services at 
     Amtrak.''
       The House THUD bill would provide about $1.13 billion in 
     Amtrak funding for fiscal 2016, down from about $1.4 billion 
     this year.--Heather Caygle.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, we have before us a bill that once 
again solidifies the majority's insistence on putting political gain 
before women's health. We also have a ruling that unnecessarily governs 
consideration of three unrelated bills, each needing its own debate. 
These so-called grab-bag rules harm our institution, muddle debate, and 
dishonor the importance of the Rules Committee and its jurisdiction.
  For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This rule provides for the consideration of several important pieces 
of legislation.
  H.R. 1735, the FY16 NDAA, was the result of months of bipartisan work 
and includes crucial provisions to ensure our Armed Forces are agile, 
efficient, ready, and lethal.
  No debate over these issues would be complete without an expression 
of our deep gratitude and thanks to the members of our military serving 
at home and overseas and the veterans who served before them. By 
providing their compensation, equipment, and vital skills education 
funding in this legislation, we make a small beginning on the 
impossible to repay debt that we owe them.

                              {time}  1345

  Consistent with our constitutional obligation to provide for the 
defense of our country fulfilled by consideration of the NDAA, H.R. 
2048, the USA Freedom Act, similarly meets our responsibilities to 
secure America by tightening necessary authorities to combat potential 
terrorist threats, while making fundamental reforms, such as the end of 
bulk collection of phone records to protect Americans' privacy and 
civil liberties.
  The provisions of this bill that increase transparency by 
declassifying decisions, orders, and opinions of the FISA court and 
requiring the public posting of reports to Congress also ensure that 
Congress and the public can hold these actors accountable.
  These critical reforms strengthen our national security, give the 
Federal Government the tools needed to combat threats, and ensure that 
privacy and civil liberties are protected.
  Our civil liberties aren't the only rights meriting protection, 
however. The right to life is the most fundamental of rights, and I am 
proud the people's House will consider H.R. 36, the Pain Capable Unborn 
Child Protection Act, getting America out of a group with North Korea, 
China, and Vietnam as one of only seven nations permitting such late-
term abortions.
  H.R. 36 provides commonsense protections for 20-week-old and older 
unborn children who can feel pain as you and I do. They have fingers 
and toes, a heartbeat, and can kick hard enough to startle their 
mothers. Thanks to the grace of God and the advances of modern science, 
many of them can even survive outside the womb.
  Millions of Americans welcome these developments, and a majority of 
our constituents support defending the lives of almost fully developed 
unborn children. That is no surprise in the wake of Kermit Gosnell's 
horrors and will only continue as more Americans learn about the 
dismemberment and other grotesque practices that accompany killing an 
unborn child of that age.
  This legislation is a necessary step in recognizing the truth that 
science has made more clear with the passage of time; the unborn child 
in the womb is alive and a functioning member of the human family.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in speaking for those who cannot 
speak for themselves by supporting this legislation, and I thank all of 
my eloquent colleagues who came down today to speak on this rule.
  Madam Speaker, the rule before us provides for action by the House on 
three critical pieces of legislation, and I strongly urge my 
colleagues' support.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
rule for the underlying H.R. 36, the Pain Capable Unborn Child 
Protection Act, because it would allow politicians, not women or 
medical experts to decide women's personal medical decisions.
  If it becomes law, H.R. 36 would ban abortion care after 20 weeks.
  This is a blatant attempt to deny all women their constitutional 
rights and it will pose an extremely serious threat to the health of 
many women in the most desperate of circumstances.
  To ban abortion care would block a woman's access to safe health care 
and deny her ability to make decisions according to her physician's 
advice.
  Supreme Court precedent establishes that a woman has the unequivocal 
right to choose abortion care until the point of fetal viability.
  This twenty-week abortion ban brazenly challenges the Supreme Court's 
standards and deliberately attempts to push the law earlier and earlier 
into a woman's pregnancy.
  This ban would cause a hardship for women in need of safe, legal, 
later abortion care for a variety of reasons including menopausal women 
not expecting to become pregnant and who may not discover it for many 
weeks.
  H.R. 36 interferes with the doctor-patient relationship, the sanctity 
of which is a cornerstone of medical care in our country.
  25,000 women in the United States become pregnant as a result of rape 
here in the U.S. every year.
  Approximately 30 percent of rapes involves women under age 18.
  According to the Department of Justice, only 35 percent of women who 
are raped or sexually assaulted reported the assault to police.
  This ban requires women rape victims to report their ordeal before 
they can terminate pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
  Our vote today on this legislation will have real life consequences.
  Take for example the case of Tiffany Campbell.
  When she was 19 weeks pregnant, Tiffany and her husband Chris learned 
her pregnancy was afflicted with a severe case of twin-to-twin 
transfusion syndrome, a condition where the two fetuses unequally share 
blood circulation.
  This news was devastating to the Campbells.
  The diagnosis was that one of the fetuses had a strained heart and 
acute risk of heart failure while the other had a blood supply that was 
insufficient to sustain normal development.
  The Campbells were told that without a selective termination, they 
risked the loss of both fetuses.
  At 22 weeks, in consultation with their doctors, they made the 
difficult decision to abort one fetus in order to save the other.

[[Page H2901]]

  Today, the lifesaving procedure for one of the fetuses would be 
illegal under the new 20-week ban mode.
  Then there is the ordeal that Vikki Stella faced.
  Vikki is a diabetic who discovered months into her pregnancy that the 
fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no 
chance of survival.
  As a result of her diabetic medical condition, Vikki's doctor 
determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier 
procedures for Vikki than an abortion.
  The procedure not only protected Vikki from immediate medical risks, 
but also ensured that she would be able to have children in the future.
  As you see from each woman's story, every pregnancy is different.
  In fact, none of us here is in the position to decide what is best 
for a woman and her family in their unique circumstances.
  H.R. 36 would deprive women the ability to make very difficult and 
extremely personal medical decisions.
  A woman's health, not politics should drive important medical 
decisions and ignoring a woman's individual circumstances threatens her 
health and takes an extremely personal medical decision away from a 
woman and her health care provider.
  The Administration urges Congress in its Statement of Administration 
Policy to oppose H.R. 36 because it would unacceptably restrict women's 
health and reproductive right to choose.
  Women, regardless of their status in life should be able to make 
choices about their bodies and their healthcare, and we as elected 
officials should not inject ourselves into decisions best made between 
a woman and her doctor.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 186, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 221]

                               YEAS--240

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--186

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Barletta
     Capps
     Graves (MO)
     Hinojosa
     Ruiz
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1416

  Mr. LUETKEMEYER 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.

                          ____________________