[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 13, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2923-H2939]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 255, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 36) to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect 
pain-capable unborn children, and for other

[[Page H2924]]

purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 255, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of House 
Report 114-111 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered 
read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 36

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Pain-Capable Unborn Child 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF 
                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR ENACTMENT.

       Congress finds and declares the following:
       (1) Pain receptors (nociceptors) are present throughout the 
     unborn child's entire body and nerves link these receptors to 
     the brain's thalamus and subcortical plate by no later than 
     20 weeks after fertilization.
       (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.
       (3) In the unborn child, application of such painful 
     stimuli is associated with significant increases in stress 
     hormones known as the stress response.
       (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.
       (5) For the purposes of surgery on unborn children, fetal 
     anesthesia is routinely administered and is associated with a 
     decrease in stress hormones compared to their level when 
     painful stimuli are applied without such anesthesia. In the 
     United States, surgery of this type is being performed by 20 
     weeks after fertilization and earlier in specialized units 
     affiliated with children's hospitals.
       (6) The position, asserted by some physicians, that the 
     unborn child is incapable of experiencing pain until a point 
     later in pregnancy than 20 weeks after fertilization 
     predominately rests on the assumption that the ability to 
     experience pain depends on the cerebral cortex and requires 
     nerve connections between the thalamus and the cortex. 
     However, recent medical research and analysis, especially 
     since 2007, provides strong evidence for the conclusion that 
     a functioning cortex is not necessary to experience pain.
       (7) Substantial evidence indicates that children born 
     missing the bulk of the cerebral cortex, those with 
     hydranencephaly, nevertheless experience pain.
       (8) In adult humans and in animals, stimulation or ablation 
     of the cerebral cortex does not alter pain perception, while 
     stimulation or ablation of the thalamus does.
       (9) Substantial evidence indicates that structures used for 
     pain processing in early development differ from those of 
     adults, using different neural elements available at specific 
     times during development, such as the subcortical plate, to 
     fulfill the role of pain processing.
       (10) The position, asserted by some commentators, that the 
     unborn child remains in a coma-like sleep state that 
     precludes the unborn child experiencing pain is inconsistent 
     with the documented reaction of unborn children to painful 
     stimuli and with the experience of fetal surgeons who have 
     found it necessary to sedate the unborn child with anesthesia 
     to prevent the unborn child from engaging in vigorous 
     movement in reaction to invasive surgery.
       (11) Consequently, there is substantial medical evidence 
     that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain at least 
     by 20 weeks after fertilization, if not earlier.
       (12) It is the purpose of the Congress to assert a 
     compelling governmental interest in protecting the lives of 
     unborn children from the stage at which substantial medical 
     evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling pain.
       (13) The compelling governmental interest in protecting the 
     lives of unborn children from the stage at which substantial 
     medical evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling 
     pain is intended to be separate from and independent of the 
     compelling governmental interest in protecting the lives of 
     unborn children from the stage of viability, and neither 
     governmental interest is intended to replace the other.
       (14) Congress has authority to extend protection to pain-
     capable unborn children under the Supreme Court's Commerce 
     Clause precedents and under the Constitution's grants of 
     powers to Congress under the Equal Protection, Due Process, 
     and Enforcement Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

     SEC. 3. PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 74 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1531 the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 1532. PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION.

       ``(a) Unlawful Conduct.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, it shall be unlawful for any person to 
     perform an abortion or attempt to do so, unless in conformity 
     with the requirements set forth in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Requirements for Abortions.--
       ``(1) Assessment of the age of the unborn child.--The 
     physician performing or attempting the abortion shall first 
     make a determination of the probable post-fertilization age 
     of the unborn child or reasonably rely upon such a 
     determination made by another physician. In making such a 
     determination, the physician shall make such inquiries of the 
     pregnant woman and perform or cause to be performed such 
     medical examinations and tests as a reasonably prudent 
     physician, knowledgeable about the case and the medical 
     conditions involved, would consider necessary to make an 
     accurate determination of post-fertilization age.
       ``(2) Prohibition on performance of certain abortions.--
       ``(A) Generally for unborn children 20 weeks or older.--
     Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the abortion shall 
     not be performed or attempted, if the probable post-
     fertilization age, as determined under paragraph (1), of the 
     unborn child is 20 weeks or greater.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--Subparagraph (A) does not apply if--
       ``(i) in reasonable medical judgment, the abortion is 
     necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is 
     endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or 
     physical injury, including a life-endangering physical 
     condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, but 
     not including psychological or emotional conditions;
       ``(ii) the pregnancy is the result of rape against an adult 
     woman, and at least 48 hours prior to the abortion--

       ``(I) she has obtained counseling for the rape; or
       ``(II) she has obtained medical treatment for the rape or 
     an injury related to the rape; or

       ``(iii) the pregnancy is a result of rape against a minor 
     or incest against a minor, and the rape or incest has been 
     reported at any time prior to the abortion to either--

       ``(I) a government agency legally authorized to act on 
     reports of child abuse; or
       ``(II) a law enforcement agency.

       ``(C) Requirement as to manner of procedure performed.--
     Notwithstanding the definitions of `abortion' and `attempt an 
     abortion' in this section, a physician terminating or 
     attempting to terminate a pregnancy under an exception 
     provided by subparagraph (B) may do so only in the manner 
     which, in reasonable medical judgment, provides the best 
     opportunity for the unborn child to survive.
       ``(D) Requirement that a physician trained in neonatal 
     resuscitation be present.--If, in reasonable medical 
     judgment, the pain-capable unborn child has the potential to 
     survive outside the womb, the physician who performs or 
     attempts an abortion under an exception provided by 
     subparagraph (B) shall ensure a second physician trained in 
     neonatal resuscitation is present and prepared to provide 
     care to the child consistent with the requirements of 
     subparagraph (E).
       ``(E) Children born alive after attempted abortions.--When 
     a physician performs or attempts an abortion in accordance 
     with this section, and the child is born alive, as defined in 
     section 8 of title 1 (commonly known as the Born-Alive 
     Infants Protection Act of 2002), the following shall apply:
       ``(i) Degree of care required.--Any health care 
     practitioner present at the time shall humanely exercise the 
     same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to 
     preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably 
     diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would 
     render to a child born alive at the same gestational age in 
     the course of a natural birth.
       ``(ii) Immediate admission to a hospital.--Following the 
     care required to be rendered under clause (i), the child born 
     alive shall be immediately transported and admitted to a 
     hospital.
       ``(iii) Mandatory reporting of violations.--A health care 
     practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician's 
     office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure 
     to comply with the requirements of this subparagraph must 
     immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or 
     Federal law enforcement agency or both.
       ``(F) Documentation requirements.--
       ``(i) Documentation pertaining to adults.--A physician who 
     performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an 
     exception provided by subparagraph (B)(ii) shall, prior to 
     the abortion, place in the patient medical file documentation 
     from a hospital licensed by the State or operated under 
     authority of a Federal agency, a medical clinic licensed by 
     the State or operated under authority of a Federal agency, 
     from a personal physician licensed by the State, a counselor 
     licensed by the State, or a victim's rights advocate provided 
     by a law enforcement agency that the adult woman seeking the 
     abortion obtained medical treatment or counseling for the 
     rape or an injury related to the rape.
       ``(ii) Documentation pertaining to minors.--A physician who 
     performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an 
     exception provided by subparagraph (B)(iii) shall, prior to 
     the abortion, place in the patient medical file documentation 
     from a government agency legally authorized to act on reports 
     of child abuse that the rape or incest was reported prior to 
     the abortion; or, as an alternative, documentation from a law 
     enforcement agency that the rape or incest was reported prior 
     to the abortion.

[[Page H2925]]

       ``(G) Informed consent.--
       ``(i) Consent form required.--The physician who intends to 
     perform or attempt to perform an abortion under the 
     provisions of subparagraph (B) may not perform any part of 
     the abortion procedure without first obtaining a signed 
     Informed Consent Authorization form in accordance with this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(ii) Content of consent form.--The Informed Consent 
     Authorization form shall be presented in person by the 
     physician and shall consist of--

       ``(I) a statement by the physician indicating the probable 
     post-fertilization age of the pain-capable unborn child;
       ``(II) a statement that Federal law allows abortion after 
     20 weeks fetal age only if the mother's life is endangered by 
     a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, 
     when the pregnancy was the result of rape, or an act of 
     incest against a minor;
       ``(III) a statement that the abortion must be performed by 
     the method most likely to allow the child to be born alive 
     unless this would cause significant risk to the mother;
       ``(IV) a statement that in any case in which an abortion 
     procedure results in a child born alive, Federal law requires 
     that child to be given every form of medical assistance that 
     is provided to children spontaneously born prematurely, 
     including transportation and admittance to a hospital;
       ``(V) a statement that these requirements are binding upon 
     the physician and all other medical personnel who are subject 
     to criminal and civil penalties and that a woman on whom an 
     abortion has been performed may take civil action if these 
     requirements are not followed; and
       ``(VI) affirmation that each signer has filled out the 
     informed consent form to the best of their knowledge and 
     understands the information contained in the form.

       ``(iii) Signatories required.--The Informed Consent 
     Authorization form shall be signed in person by the woman 
     seeking the abortion, the physician performing or attempting 
     to perform the abortion, and a witness.
       ``(iv) Retention of consent form.--The physician performing 
     or attempting to perform an abortion must retain the signed 
     informed consent form in the patient's medical file.
       ``(H) Requirement for data retention.--Paragraph (j)(2) of 
     section 164.530 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     shall apply to documentation required to be placed in a 
     patient's medical file pursuant to subparagraph (F) of 
     subsection (b)(2) and a consent form required to be retained 
     in a patient's medical file pursuant to subparagraph (G) of 
     such subsection in the same manner and to the same extent as 
     such paragraph applies to documentation required by paragraph 
     (j)(1) of such section.
       ``(I) Additional exceptions and requirements.--
       ``(i) In cases of risk of death or major injury to the 
     mother.--Subparagraphs (C), (D), and (G) shall not apply if, 
     in reasonable medical judgment, compliance with such 
     paragraphs would pose a greater risk of--

       ``(I) the death of the pregnant woman; or
       ``(II) the substantial and irreversible physical impairment 
     of a major bodily function, not including psychological or 
     emotional conditions, of the pregnant woman.

       ``(ii) Exclusion of certain facilities.--Notwithstanding 
     the definitions of the terms `medical treatment' and 
     `counseling' in subsection (g), the counseling or medical 
     treatment described in subparagraph (B)(ii) may not be 
     provided by a facility that performs abortions (unless that 
     facility is a hospital).
       ``(iii) Rule of construction in cases of reports to law 
     enforcement.--The requirements of subparagraph (B)(ii) do not 
     apply if the rape has been reported at any time prior to the 
     abortion to a law enforcement agency or Department of Defense 
     victim assistance personnel.
       ``(iv) Compliance with certain state laws.--

       ``(I) State laws regarding reporting of rape and incest.--
     The physician who performs or attempts to perform an abortion 
     under an exception provided by subparagraph (B) shall comply 
     with such applicable State laws that are in effect as the 
     State's Attorney General may designate, regarding reporting 
     requirements in cases of rape or incest.
       ``(II) State laws regarding parental involvement.--The 
     physician who intends to perform an abortion on a minor under 
     an exception provided by subparagraph (B) shall comply with 
     any applicable State laws requiring parental involvement in a 
     minor's decision to have an abortion.

       ``(c) Criminal Penalty.--Whoever violates subsection (a) 
     shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more 
     than 5 years, or both.
       ``(d) Bar to Prosecution.--A woman upon whom an abortion in 
     violation of subsection (a) is performed or attempted may not 
     be prosecuted under, or for a conspiracy to violate, 
     subsection (a), or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of 
     this title based on such a violation.
       ``(e) Civil Remedies.--
       ``(1) Civil action by a woman on whom an abortion is 
     performed.--A woman upon whom an abortion has been performed 
     or attempted in violation of any provision of this section 
     may, in a civil action against any person who committed the 
     violation, obtain appropriate relief.
       ``(2) Civil action by a parent of a minor on whom an 
     abortion is performed.--A parent of a minor upon whom an 
     abortion has been performed or attempted under an exception 
     provided for in subsection (b)(2)(B), and that was performed 
     in violation of any provision of this section may, in a civil 
     action against any person who committed the violation obtain 
     appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the 
     plaintiff's criminal conduct.
       ``(3) Appropriate relief.--Appropriate relief in a civil 
     action under this subsection includes--
       ``(A) objectively verifiable money damages for all 
     injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the 
     violation;
       ``(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of 
     the abortion; and
       ``(C) punitive damages.
       ``(4) Attorneys fees for plaintiff.--The court shall award 
     a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs to a 
     prevailing plaintiff in a civil action under this subsection.
       ``(5) Attorneys fees for defendant.--If a defendant in a 
     civil action under this subsection prevails and the court 
     finds that the plaintiff's suit was frivolous, the court 
     shall award a reasonable attorney's fee in favor of the 
     defendant against the plaintiff.
       ``(6) Awards against woman.--Except under paragraph (5), in 
     a civil action under this subsection, no damages, attorney's 
     fee or other monetary relief may be assessed against the 
     woman upon whom the abortion was performed or attempted.
       ``(f) Data Collection.--
       ``(1) Data submissions.--Any physician who performs or 
     attempts an abortion described in subsection (b)(2)(B) shall 
     annually submit a summary of all such abortions to the 
     National Center for Health Statistics (hereinafter referred 
     to as the `Center') not later than 60 days after the end of 
     the calendar year in which the abortion was performed or 
     attempted.
       ``(2) Contents of summary.--The summary shall include the 
     number of abortions performed or attempted on an unborn child 
     who had a post-fertilization age of 20 weeks or more and 
     specify the following for each abortion under subsection 
     (b)(2)(B):
       ``(A) the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn 
     child;
       ``(B) the method used to carry out the abortion;
       ``(C) the location where the abortion was conducted;
       ``(D) the exception under subsection (b)(2)(B) under which 
     the abortion was conducted; and
       ``(E) any incident of live birth resulting from the 
     abortion.
       ``(3) Exclusions from data submissions.--A summary required 
     under this subsection shall not contain any information 
     identifying the woman whose pregnancy was terminated and 
     shall be submitted consistent with the Health Insurance 
     Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 
     note).
       ``(4) Public report.--The Center shall annually issue a 
     public report providing statistics by State for the previous 
     year compiled from all of the summaries made to the Center 
     under this subsection. The Center shall take care to ensure 
     that none of the information included in the public reports 
     could reasonably lead to the identification of any pregnant 
     woman upon whom an abortion was performed or attempted. The 
     annual report shall be issued by July 1 of the calendar year 
     following the year in which the abortions were performed or 
     attempted.
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Abortion.--The term `abortion' means the use or 
     prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other 
     substance or device--
       ``(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman 
     known to be pregnant; or
       ``(B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman 
     known to be pregnant, with an intention other than--
       ``(i) after viability to produce a live birth and preserve 
     the life and health of the child born alive; or
       ``(ii) to remove a dead unborn child.
       ``(2) Attempt.--The term `attempt', with respect to an 
     abortion, means conduct that, under the circumstances as the 
     actor believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in 
     a course of conduct planned to culminate in performing an 
     abortion.
       ``(3) Counseling.--The term `counseling' means counseling 
     provided by a counselor licensed by the State, or a victims 
     rights advocate provided by a law enforcement agency.
       ``(4) Facility.--The term `facility' means any medical or 
     counseling group, center or clinic and includes the entire 
     legal entity, including any entity that controls, is 
     controlled by, or is under common control with such facility.
       ``(5) Fertilization.--The term `fertilization' means the 
     fusion of human spermatozoon with a human ovum.
       ``(6) Medical treatment.--The term `medical treatment' 
     means treatment provided at a hospital licensed by the State 
     or operated under authority of a Federal agency, at a medical 
     clinic licensed by the State or operated under authority of a 
     Federal agency, or from a personal physician licensed by the 
     State.
       ``(7) Minor.--The term `minor' means an individual who has 
     not attained the age of 18 years.
       ``(8) Perform.--The term `perform', with respect to an 
     abortion, includes inducing an abortion through a medical or 
     chemical intervention including writing a prescription

[[Page H2926]]

     for a drug or device intended to result in an abortion.
       ``(9) Physician.--The term `physician' means a person 
     licensed to practice medicine and surgery or osteopathic 
     medicine and surgery, or otherwise legally authorized to 
     perform an abortion.
       ``(10) Post-fertilization age.--The term `post-
     fertilization age' means the age of the unborn child as 
     calculated from the fusion of a human spermatozoon with a 
     human ovum.
       ``(11) Probable post-fertilization age of the unborn 
     child.--The term `probable post-fertilization age of the 
     unborn child' means what, in reasonable medical judgment, 
     will with reasonable probability be the post-fertilization 
     age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is planned 
     to be performed or induced.
       ``(12) Reasonable medical judgment.--The term `reasonable 
     medical judgment' means a medical judgment that would be made 
     by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable about the 
     case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the 
     medical conditions involved.
       ``(13) Unborn child.--The term `unborn child' means an 
     individual organism of the species homo sapiens, beginning at 
     fertilization, until the point of being born alive as defined 
     in section 8(b) of title 1.
       ``(14) Woman.--The term `woman' means a female human being 
     whether or not she has reached the age of majority.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1532. Pain-capable unborn child protection.''.
       (c) Chapter Heading Amendments.--
       (1) Chapter heading in chapter.--The chapter heading for 
     chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``Partial-Birth Abortions'' and inserting 
     ``Abortions''
       (2) Table of chapters for part i.--The item relating to 
     chapter 74 in the table of chapters at the beginning of part 
     I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``Partial-Birth Abortions'' and inserting ``Abortions''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 36, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Since the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, medical knowledge 
regarding the development of unborn babies and their capacities at 
various stages of growth has advanced dramatically.
  To give you a sense of how much technology has advanced, here is the 
issue of The New York Times announcing the Roe v. Wade decision in 
1973. It contains ads for the latest in advanced technology, including 
a computer the size of a file cabinet you could rent for $3,000 a month 
that only had one-thousandths the memory of a modern cell phone and a 
basic AM radio that was as big as your hand.
  Thirty-five years later, in the age of ultrasound pictures, the same 
newspaper would report on the latest advanced research on the pain 
experienced by unborn children, focusing on the research of Dr. Sunny 
Anand, an Oxford-trained neonatal pediatrician who held an appointment 
at Harvard Medical School.
  As Dr. Anand has testified regarding abortions: ``If the fetus is 
beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain 
caused to the fetus, and I believe it will be severe and excruciating 
pain.''
  A few years later, the terrifying facts uncovered in the grand jury 
report regarding the prosecution of late-term abortionist Kermit 
Gosnell would contain references to a neonatal expert who said the 
cutting of babies' spinal cords intended to be late-term aborted would 
cause them ``a tremendous amount of pain.''
  Congress has the power and the responsibility to acknowledge these 
developments in our understanding of the ability of unborn children to 
feel pain by prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, 
postfertilization, the point at which scientific evidence shows the 
unborn can experience great suffering.
  The bill before us would do just that. It also includes provisions to 
protect the life of the mother and additional exceptions for cases of 
rape and incest.
  Some Members, last Congress and today, have called this bill extreme; 
but such claims are clearly false, as evidenced by the polls, which 
show astounding support for this bill.
  A Quinnipiac poll found that 62 percent of people surveyed supported 
a ban on abortions after 20 weeks or earlier. A clear majority of men, 
women, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, married people, and single people 
support a ban on abortion after 20 weeks or earlier.
  Among women, 68 percent of women support a ban on abortion at 20 
weeks or earlier, including 66 percent of single women and 71 percent 
of married women. Even 49 percent of the Democrats polled support a ban 
on abortion at 20 weeks or earlier, significantly more than those who 
opposed it.
  A Washington Post poll similarly found 66 percent support for this 
bill, and a Huffington Post poll found support at 59 percent.
  Today, America is one of the few countries on Earth, including North 
Korea and China, that allows permissive late-term abortions. These 
polls show the American people want to change that.
  Today is the second anniversary of Kermit Gosnell's conviction for 
first degree murder. Following the Gosnell trial, we were all reminded 
that when late-term babies are taken from the womb and cut with 
scissors, they whimper and cry and flinch from pain. Unborn babies, 
when cut inside the womb, also whimper and cry and flinch from pain.
  Delivered or not, babies are babies, and they can feel pain at least 
by 20 weeks. It is time to welcome young children who can feel pain 
into the human family, and this bill, at last, will do just that.
  Finally, I would note that it is rare for the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office to be so confident that a bill would save 
lives that it makes an estimate as to the number of lives that would be 
saved were the bill to be enacted; but the CBO did just that, 
conservatively estimating that this bill, if enacted, would save 2,500 
lives each year. It could save many thousands more.
  Let that sink in for a moment. This bill, if enacted, would probably 
save, at a minimum, thousands of lives per year. It would give America 
the gift of thousands more children and, consequently, thousands more 
mothers and thousands more fathers, with all the wondrous human gifts 
they will bring to the world in so many amazing forms, including their 
own children, for generations to come.
  I congratulate Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice 
Chairman Trent Franks for introducing this vital legislation, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker and Members of the House, this legislation is a 
dangerous and far-reaching attack on a woman's constitutional right to 
choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, a right that the 
Supreme Court guaranteed 42 years ago in the case of Roe v. Wade.
  One of the most significant problems with this legislation is that it 
fails to include any exception for a woman's health. Many serious 
health conditions materialize or worsen late in pregnancy, including 
damage to the heart and kidneys, hypertension, and even some forms of 
hormone-induced cancer; yet, by failing to include a health exception, 
H.R. 36 would force a woman to wait until her condition was nearly 
terminal before she could obtain an abortion to address her health 
condition.
  In addition, H.R. 36 is unconstitutional based on longstanding 
Supreme Court precedent. I will explain. Roe v. Wade's basic holding is 
that a woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion prior to 
the fetus' viability. Viability is generally considered to be around 24 
weeks from fertilization, not 20 weeks. By banning previability 
abortions, H.R. 36 is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

[[Page H2927]]

  In addition, Roe made clear that any regulation on abortion, even 
after viability, must not pose a substantial risk to the woman's 
health; but, as I have already noted, H.R. 36 lacks any exception to 
protect a pregnant woman's health. It is, therefore, not surprising 
that the Nation's leading civil rights organizations, medical 
professionals, and women's groups oppose this bill.
  In addition, 15 religious organizations noted in a letter to Members 
of Congress opposing nearly identical legislation in the last Congress 
that ``the decision to end a pregnancy is best left to a woman in 
consultation with her family, her doctor, and her faith.''
  Finally, I want to be clear that, contrary to assertions made by the 
bill's proponents, this legislation still contains a woefully 
inadequate exception for victims of rape. The so-called rape exception 
is still based on a complete lack of understanding of the very real 
challenges rape survivors face and why a rape may go unreported.
  It is also grounded in the distrust of women, assuming that women 
cannot be trusted to tell the truth or to make the best medical 
decisions for themselves and their families.
  For adult rape survivors, the bill no longer requires that the rape 
be reported to law enforcement. However, a woman must still obtain 
counseling 48 hours prior to the abortion, and the fact that she has 
obtained counseling for a rape must be certified and documented in her 
medical file. This counseling cannot be obtained in the same facility 
where the abortion is provided.
  For minor victims of rape or incest, an exception from the bill's 
onerous and unconstitutional restrictions only applies if the rape has 
been reported to law enforcement or ``a government agency legally 
authorized to act on reports of child abuse,'' so rape is not rape 
unless the minor has reported it, even if that means putting her own 
safety at risk.
  For these reasons, my colleagues, I urge opposition to this dangerous 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) be permitted to control the 
remainder of the time as my designee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, when I became a nurse more than 40 years ago, I took a 
vow to ``devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care,'' 
but our understanding of the science limited to the extent to which I 
could fulfill that promise has evolved.
  During my first years of nursing, if a woman came into our hospital 
in labor at 32 weeks of pregnancy, our odds of saving her child were 
slim. However, today, babies are being saved as early as 22 weeks into 
fetal development, according to a study that was just released this 
past week by The New York Times. What's more, there is significant 
evidence that, at 20 weeks of development, unborn children have the 
capacity to feel pain.
  Sadly, while we celebrate advances in technology that prove life has 
value and worth before leaving the hospital, we also continue to be one 
of only seven nations that allow elective, late-term abortions--one of 
only seven nations around this world.
  It is difficult to imagine a more important measure of society than 
how it treats the most innocent and defenseless population. By 
condoning the destruction of unborn life that could otherwise live 
outside the womb, the United States tragically fails to meet this most 
fundamental human rights standard.
  Basic decency and human compassion demand that something has to 
change. Polls consistently show that upwards of 60 percent of Americans 
support putting an end to the dangerous and inhumane practice of late-
term abortions. To be clear, we have a mandate to act.
  That is why I strongly support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child 
Protection Act this week, which will provide Federal protection for an 
unborn child at 20 weeks, with exceptions to saving the life of the 
mother or in cases of rape and incest.
  Today's vote coincides with the 2-year anniversary of the conviction 
of the evil abortionist, Kermit Gosnell, who killed babies born alive 
in his clinic and who is responsible for the death of an adult woman. 
Americans were rightfully outraged when they were told of his crimes.
  The truth is that innocent, unborn children routinely suffer that 
same fate as Gosnell's victims did through ``normal'' late-term 
abortions and the government does not bat an eye. The only difference 
between these casualties and the loss of life that resulted in 
Gosnell's murder conviction is the location.
  Madam Speaker, if we cannot appeal to my pro-abortion lawmakers' 
sense of compassion when it comes to this issue, then surely we can at 
least appeal to their senses of logic and fact.
  Knowing that premature babies are being saved as early as 22 weeks 
into fetal development, there is no legitimate reason to oppose this 
bill. In the year 2015, the United States has no business aborting a 
life that can live outside the womb. Science agrees and so do the 
majority of Americans.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will right this wrong.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  I appreciate the good feelings and earnest arguments made by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee and the gentleman from Arizona, but the fact 
is this bill is patently unconstitutional because this bill is not 
about viability; it is a subterfuge for viability and talks about the 
issue of pain. Pain is not the issue; viability is the issue.
  What the real issue is, politicians are not medical experts, and 
women should make these decisions based upon information from people 
they trust. Women should make these decisions based upon information 
from people they trust.
  The information given about this bill is limited, and the fact is Dr. 
Anand, who was cited by my friend, the chairman of the committee, is 
from the University of Tennessee in Memphis, where I am from.
  The fact is Dr. Anand, if he had gone further, since 2005, has turned 
down requests to testify in regard to this type of legislation because 
he doesn't think that his studies have been used properly. Abortion is 
not the focus, and the politicization of his work has gotten completely 
out of hand.
  The fact is there are polls that say one thing and polls that say 
another. The poll that I respect most shows it to be about an even one-
third split on support, opposition, and indecision.
  This isn't about polls; this is supposed to be about the Constitution 
and upholding Roe v. Wade and medical experts and not politicians 
making decisions that are poll-driven and possibly favorable to their 
own constituencies.

  The exceptions for incest are the most egregious. If a woman is 
pregnant because of incest, under this law, if the lady is under 18 
years of age, there is one rule; but, if she is 18 years of age or 
older, there is another rule.
  What it says is, if you are 18 or over and you are pregnant as a 
result of incest, then you cannot get an abortion--you cannot--but, if 
you are under 18, you can if you report it to the law enforcement 
authorities.
  In the discussion last night at Rules Committee, the vice chair of 
Rules Committee errantly compared rape and incest. Incest does not 
necessarily involve rape. It involves intercourse between parties that 
are not legally supposed to have intercourse and issues which could 
result in problems for the child.
  Incest should always be an exception, and the life and health of the 
mother should always be an exception, and the health exceptions are 
limited to physical and not mental and emotional, which are the most 
pressing for women. There is also a 48-hour waiting period in this 
bill.
  This bill is unconstitutional and wrong. We should respect medical 
experts and not politicians and women to make decisions with people 
they trust.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), our majority whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from

[[Page H2928]]

Tennessee for yielding and for her leadership and for all of the people 
that have worked so hard to bring this important bill to the House 
floor.
  If you look at what we are doing here today, we are standing up for 
life of our most innocent. We are talking about babies that are more 
than 20 weeks in the womb. Scientific evidence shows that after 20 
weeks, these babies can feel pain, and so this bill prohibits abortions 
after 5 months of pregnancy.
  I am proud to come from Louisiana, which has the distinction of being 
the most pro-life State in the Nation. Our State already bans this 
procedure, as do many.
  It is not just States we are talking about. Most nations in the world 
don't allow this procedure after 20 weeks. The United States will 
finally be joining the vast majority of other countries around the 
world and the vast majority of Americans who understand that it is not 
right to have abortions after 20 weeks.
  This is an important bill. I think it is a very strong message that 
we are going to be sending in defense of life by passing it. I urge my 
colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the House 
Judiciary Committee.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 36.
  For more than 40 years, the Supreme Court has clearly and 
consistently held that women have the constitutional right to terminate 
a pregnancy prior to viability or at any time to protect the life and 
health of the mother. This bill is unconstitutional as it violates both 
of those provisions.
  The bill provides a narrow exemption to protect women's lives, 
allowing physicians to terminate pregnancy after 20 weeks only if a 
woman's life is at imminent risk. This exemption fails to account for 
the many severe health issues that may arise late in pregnancy and 
forces physicians to think about legal implications rather than about a 
patient's health.
  Perhaps most cruelly, this legislation includes only a very narrow 
exemption for victims of rape and incest, requiring that any woman 
seeking an abortion after 20 weeks prove that she either reported the 
rape to the authorities or sought counseling services. The unfortunate 
reality is only 35 percent of sexual assaults are ever reported, and we 
know that there are many reasons for not reporting a rape: the toll our 
criminal justice system takes on victims, the humiliation and 
intimidation faced by victims of assault, and even the additional risk 
to their personal safety.
  So why place this limit on the rape exception? What does this narrow 
exemption say about our Republican colleagues' view of women? It is 
quite simple. This bill says they believe women lie. The Republicans 
seem to think that women are too dishonest to believe when they say 
they have been raped.
  This bill continues a too long tradition of treating women like 
second class citizens. Measures introduced at the State and Federal 
level to restrict abortions imply that women lie about rape, that women 
are misinformed about their own pregnancies and must undergo invasive 
tests and exams, and that women are immoral for ever making the choice 
to terminate a pregnancy no matter what the circumstance. That is 
insulting. It is, frankly, none of our business.
  Enough is enough. Doctors, not politicians, should be providing women 
guidance, support, and medical advice throughout their pregnancy, and 
particularly when making a deeply personal decision to terminate a 
pregnancy. And women, not politicians, should make that decision for 
themselves.
  We must defeat this unconstitutional bill and continue to afford 
women their constitutional right enjoyed by every man, without 
question, to make decisions about their health care in the privacy of 
their doctors' offices. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
terrible bill.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, it is my honor now to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), who is the sponsor of the 
bill.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, for the sake of all of those who founded this Nation 
and dreamed of what America could someday be, and for the sake of all 
of those who died in darkness so Americans could walk in the light of 
freedom, it is so very important that those of us who are privileged to 
be Members of this Congress pause from time to time and remind 
ourselves of why we are really all here.
  Thomas Jefferson, whose words marked the beginning of this Nation, 
said:

       The care of human life and its happiness, and not its 
     destruction, is the chief and only object of good government.

  The phrase of the Fifth Amendment capsulizes our entire Constitution. 
It says no person shall ``be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 
without due process of law.''
  And the 14th Amendment says that no State shall ``deny to any person 
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.''
  Madam Speaker, protecting the lives of all Americans and their 
constitutional rights, especially those that can't defend themselves, 
is why we are all here. Yet today, Madam Speaker, a great shadow looms 
over America. More than 18,000 very late-term abortions are occurring 
in America every year, placing the mothers at exponentially greater 
risk and subjecting their pain-capable unborn babies to torture and 
death without anesthesia and without any Federal protection of any kind 
in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
  It is the greatest human rights atrocity in the United States today, 
and almost every other civilized nation on Earth protects pain-capable 
unborn babies, at this age particularly. And every credible poll of 
Americans shows the American people are overwhelmingly in favor of 
protecting them, yet we have given these little babies less legal 
protection from unnecessary cruelty than the protection we have given 
farm animals under the Federal Humane Slaughter Act.
  Madam Speaker, it just seems that we are never quite so eloquent as 
when we decry the crimes of a past generation, but we often become so 
staggeringly blind when it comes to facing and rejecting the worst of 
atrocities in our own time.
  Thankfully, Madam Speaker, I believe the winds of change are now 
beginning to blow and that this tide of blindness and blood is finally 
turning in America because today--today--we are poised to pass the 
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in this Chamber. And no matter 
how it is shouted down or what distortions or deceptive what-ifs, 
distractions, diversions, gotchas, twisting of the words, changing of 
subject, or blatant falsehoods the abortion industry hurls at this bill 
and its supporters, it remains that this bill is a deeply sincere 
effort, beginning at the sixth month, at their sixth month of 
pregnancy, to protect both mothers and their pain-capable unborn babies 
from the atrocity of late-term abortion on demand. Ultimately, it is 
one that all humane Americans can support if they truly understand it 
for themselves.
  Madam Speaker, this is a vote all of us will remember the rest of our 
lives. It will be considered in the annals of history and, I believe, 
in the counsels of eternity, itself.
  But it shouldn't be such a hard vote because, in spite of all of the 
political noise, protecting little unborn, pain-capable babies is not a 
Republican issue, and it is not a Democrat issue. It is a test of our 
basic humanity and who we are as a human family.
  It is time that we open our eyes and let our consciences catch up 
with our technology. It is time for the Members of the United States 
Congress to open our eyes and our souls and remember that protecting 
those who cannot protect themselves is why we are all here. That is why 
we are here.
  Madam Speaker, it is time for all Americans to open our eyes and our 
hearts to the humanity of these little pain-capable unborn children of 
God and the inhumanity of what is being done to them.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms.

[[Page H2929]]

DelBene), a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36, a 
nationwide 20-week abortion ban.
  It is truly appalling to me that House leaders keep ignoring the 
needs of middle class families while taking up bill after bill 
restricting women's access to health care--and during National Women's 
Health Week, no less.
  The legislation we are debating today is an unconscionable attack 
that ignores medical safety and puts women's health at risk. It creates 
unnecessary burdens to care for sexual assault survivors, who are 
already facing extraordinarily difficult circumstances, and it injects 
ideology into the doctor-patient relationship. It puts politicians, 
rather than women, in charge of their medical care.
  Madam Speaker, House leaders need to stop interfering in what is a 
deeply personal medical decision. The American people expect better 
from this Chamber, and they deserve real solutions to the challenges 
they are facing. This bill fails women and their families, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, it is now my delight to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge the whole House to 
support H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
  H.R. 36 is the most pro-life legislation to ever come before this 
body, and it reflects the will of the American people. As such, it also 
reflects the contributions of many people and many perspectives.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Black), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith) for their hard work in bringing this bill to the 
floor. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. 
McMorris Rodgers), our Conference chair, for her leadership in helping 
us shepherd this bill to the floor.
  I want to take a moment to recognize all of the Americans who spoke 
out for this bill. Their voices have been heard. After all, they have 
no higher obligation than to speak out for those who can't speak for 
themselves, to defend the defenseless. That is what this bill does.
  We know that by 5 months in the womb, unborn babies are capable of 
feeling pain, and it is morally wrong to inflict pain on an innocent 
human being. Protecting these lives is the right thing to do. Again, a 
majority of Americans agree.
  Madam Speaker, growing up with 11 brothers and sisters, I didn't need 
my parents to tell me that every child is a gift from God. But let me 
tell you, they did, and they did it often because that respect, that 
sanctity, and that dignity is everything.
  A vote for this bill is a vote to protect innocent lives and to 
protect our dearest values for generations to come. We should all be 
proud to take this stance today, and I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this bill today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished 
member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I have had more than a momentous time 
to be in this body.
  I was moved by the conviction of my friend and colleague and the 
Speaker, Mr. Franks and Mr. Boehner, because I know that they speak 
from their hearts.
  But faith cannot be distributed on one side of the aisle. My faith, 
my God is no less than the Republicans'.
  I speak for those who cannot be here today. I speak for mothers who 
suffer in corners, trying to provide for their children, but love their 
children and gave birth to them. I speak for those whom I sat in a room 
called the Judiciary Committee some years ago and listened to the pain 
of mothers who said: I want this child, but my doctor has advised me 
that my life would not have survived to take care of my other children 
had I not had the ability to be able to follow my doctor and my faith, 
praying with my husband, my faith leader, my extended family to make 
the decisions that would, in fact, provide for not only future 
children, but for my sanctity and ability to be the woman that I need 
to be.
  Just outside this Chamber, I met the author of the song ``Glory.'' 
Many of us heard it in the movie ``Selma.'' In the opening line, it 
says: ``One day when the glory comes, it will be ours. It will be 
ours.''
  Everybody's glory is different. But H.R. 36--besides being 
unconstitutional--speaks against 25,000 women in the United States who 
became pregnant as a result of rape. Madam Speaker, 30 percent of rapes 
involve women under 18. It speaks against those women because it 
requires a woman rape victim to report her ordeal before she can 
terminate a pregnancy, to go to a law enforcement officer.
  It challenges their faith and their love of God. I am incensed that 
we challenge someone's faith. I speak for those women who cannot be 
here today, who love children, who love life, who are good mothers. And 
I take no less in the conviction of those who have spoken for my 
conviction and the conviction of those women.
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 
minute.

                              {time}  1600

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome is a condition 
where the two fetuses unequally share blood circulation. The news was 
devastating, but they had to make a decision that was guided by the 
doctor and their faith. The Campbells were told that without selective 
termination, they risked the loss of both fetuses. They would not have 
any. At 22 weeks, in consultation with their doctors--and I know their 
faith--they made the difficult decision to abort one fetus in order to 
save the other. Today the lifesaving procedure for one of the fetuses 
would be illegal under the new 20-week ban.
  Madam Speaker, I beg of my colleagues. I know there will be those who 
will vote, but as I stand here today, I do not condemn the conviction 
of my friends. But right now I am welled up with tears because I have 
hugged those who had nowhere else to go. And no man can stand and tell 
a woman what rape is and how it feels and what the results of that is. 
That is why the Constitution in the Ninth Amendment and the Supreme 
Court interpreted Roe v. Wade as it did.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 
minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. I will come to a close. But I 
am welled with emotion, not for killing, but for saving; not for 
condemnation, but for appreciation; not for judging, but for letting 
people know that I have constituents who are huddled in places right 
now in Houston, Texas, in fear, huddled because laws have prevented 
them from good counseling, counseling before such tragedy would happen, 
laws that have prevented them from having facilities in their area. 
They fall victim to shysters because of laws that we pass here.
  I cannot see that anymore, and H.R. 36 now makes it a Federal offense 
and offends doctors and people of faith. So I close by simply saying 
that I love that song ``Glory.'' It says: ``One day when the glory 
comes, it will be ours. It will be ours.''
  But glory has to be tolerance and acceptance of people's condition. 
Prayerfully we must do the right thing in this Congress and vote 
against H.R. 36.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36, the ``Pain 
Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.''
  I opposed this irresponsible and reckless legislation the last time 
it was brought to the floor under a suspension of the rules and fell 
well short of the two thirds majority needed to pass.
  I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women 
at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of 
privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing 
American people.
  A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating 
the Rights of Women Act of 2015.''

[[Page H2930]]

  Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across 
the aisle should be working with Democrats to build upon the ``Middle-
Class Economics'' championed by the Obama Administration that have 
succeeded in ending the economic meltdown it inherited in 2009 and 
revived the economy to the point where today we have the highest rate 
of growth and lowest rate of unemployment since the boom years of the 
Clinton Administration.
  Madam Speaker, we could and should instead be voting to raise the 
minimum wage to at least $10.10 per hour so that people who work hard 
and play by the rules do not have to raise their families in poverty.
  Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for 
the umpteenth time, we should bring to the floor for a first vote 
comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing 
the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court's 
decision in Shelby County v. Holder.
  The one thing we should not be doing is debating irresponsible 
``messaging bills'' that abridge the rights of women and have 
absolutely no chance of overriding a presidential veto.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 36 seeks to take the misguided and mean-spirited 
policy that in 2013 was directed at the District of Columbia and make 
it the law of the land.
  In so doing, the bill poses a nationwide threat to the health and 
wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme 
Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.
  Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is 
that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of 
circumstances.
  It is these women who receive the 1.5 percent of abortions that occur 
after 20 weeks.
  Women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her 
pregnancy that he fetus she was carrying suffered from several major 
anomalies and had no chance of survival.
  Because of Vikki's diabetic, her doctor determined that induced labor 
and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an 
abortion.
  Because Vikki was able to terminate the pregnancy, she was protected 
from the immediate and serious medical risks to her health and her 
ability to have children in the future was preserved.
  Madam Speaker, every pregnancy is different.
  No politician knows, or has the right to assume what is best for a 
woman and her family.
  These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in 
consultation with their partners, doctors, their God,
  Madam Speaker, I also strongly oppose H.R. 36 because it lacks the 
necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother.
  In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could prohibit a woman 
from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect 
her health prior to viability.
  While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus 
of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not 
occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.
  By prohibiting nearly all abortions beginning at ``the probable post-
fertilization age'' of 20 weeks, H.R. 36 violates this clear and long 
standing constitutional rule.
  Madam Speaker, the constitutionally protected right to privacy 
encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy 
before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a 
threat to her health and safety.
  This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.
  I strongly oppose H.R. 36 and urge all members to join me in voting 
against this unwise measure that put the lives and health of women at 
risk.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
  Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and 
for her leadership on this issue.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of life. Life begins at 
conception. We know that after 3 weeks, the baby has a heartbeat. After 
7 weeks, the baby begins kicking in the womb. Believe me, as a mother 
of three, I know it well. By week eight, the baby begins to hear and 
fingerprints begin to form. After 10 weeks, the baby is able to turn 
his or her head, frown, and get the hiccups. By week 11, the baby can 
grasp with his or her hands. By week 12, the baby can suck his or her 
thumb. By week 15, the baby has an adult's taste buds. By week 18, that 
baby can flex his or her arms. And by week of 20, Madam Speaker, not 
only can that baby recognize the sound of his or her own mother's 
voice, but that baby can also feel pain.
  Madam Speaker, it is not only the pain of the child that we must be 
concerned with, but it is also the pain of the mother.
  H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, provides 
protections for both the woman and the child. This is not a bill 
restricting women's rights. This is a bill that supports and protects 
life. This bill is prowoman. It encourages discussion, medical 
treatment, and counseling for women who have been victimized. This bill 
is prowoman. It empowers women with a civil right of action if this law 
is not followed.
  This bill, Madam Speaker, is prochild. It ensures that a baby born 
alive will be given lifesaving treatment. This bill is a prowoman and 
prochild solution to what our science and our values--our deeply held 
values--already tell us: that a baby at 22 weeks can feel pain, and 
that that baby deserves protection.
  Madam Speaker, I am for life at all stages. I am for the life of the 
baby and the life of the mother. I will continue to work for the day 
when not only is abortion illegal but, Madam Speaker, it is 
unthinkable.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the 
balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), and 
that he may control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36. Instead of 
considering legislation that would help to promote our economic 
recovery, expand educational opportunities, repair our crumbling 
infrastructure, or invest in science and research, our House colleagues 
on the Republican side continue to pursue an extreme social agenda.
  I stand to strongly oppose H.R. 36, which would violate Supreme Court 
precedent and impose arbitrary and unconstitutional restrictions on 
women's healthcare decisions. Every woman in America deserves access to 
affordable, comprehensive health care, including full reproductive 
health care. H.R. 36 would ban abortions after 20 weeks even though 
medical professionals have explained that some deadly and severe 
conditions cannot be diagnosed earlier.
  Madam Speaker, politicians are not medical experts and should not be 
making healthcare decisions for women in this country. These decisions 
are properly made by women in consultation with their healthcare 
professionals, not by a bunch of politicians in Washington.
  In addition, the bill contains an unreasonably narrow exception for 
cases in which the woman's life is in danger or the pregnancy is the 
result of rape or incest: only if the woman has sought mental health 
counseling or reported the incident to law enforcement--even though we 
know that a majority of these crimes go undisclosed or unreported.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is a dangerous distraction from the pressing 
needs facing our country. I urge my colleagues to oppose this terrible 
bill and leave healthcare decisions in the hands of the people they 
belong in, the women of this country.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee for her leadership on this important issue.
  Madam Speaker, there is a rule in the House of Representatives that 
any little child who is a guest of ours can come right down here and be 
in the well with us. Now let's assume for a moment that one of those 
children tripped and fell and hurt themselves and cried out in pain. 
There is not a Member of this body that wouldn't rush to their side and 
comfort them. And that is what this bill does today. It rushes to the 
side of children who are feeling the pain of violence of abortion.
  Let's stand with them. Let's stand with women who deserve better than

[[Page H2931]]

the aggressive tactics of the abortion industry and their profit 
seeking and marketing. Let's rebuild our Nation's compassion capacity 
so that we can understand what is right and just by protecting the 
little ones who are most vulnerable. Let's do something good for 
America today.
  Mr. COHEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lee).
  Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership.
  Madam Speaker, of course I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36, 
which is nothing more than another ideological attack on women's 
reproductive rights.
  This bill would institute a nationwide ban on abortion after 20 weeks 
with no exceptions to protect women's health. It adds unnecessary 
burdens and obstacles to deny medical care to women in the most 
desperate of circumstances, including in the instance of rape, by 
requiring women to seek counseling or medical treatment prior to her 
medical procedure. I remember the days of back-alley abortions. Many 
women died, and more were permanently injured before Roe v. Wade.
  Madam Speaker, with this egregious bill, Republicans have once again 
decided to take us back there, to threaten physicians, for instance, 
with criminal prosecution. This bill is unconstitutional; it is 
dangerous; and it is wrong. No woman should have a politician 
interfering in her personal health decisions. They should always be 
kept private, period. And my faith is as deep as those using their 
faith, imposing their faith on women who must make these very difficult 
personal decisions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. LEE. Instead of passing yet another bill that attacks women, we 
should get back to the real work that American families desperately 
need, like eliminating poverty, instituting real criminal justice 
reform, and increasing job opportunities for all.
  For those who say that they support life, then why not support 
universal preschool, paid family medical leave, affordable child care, 
and support those life-affirming measures that we are trying to get 
passed here? So I urge a ``no'' vote on this outrageous attack on 
women.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chair of the Pro-Life Caucus.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for 
yielding and for her extraordinary leadership. Thank you to Trent 
Franks, Speaker Boehner, Kevin McCarthy, Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, and 
the gentlewoman presiding in the Chair--so many. This has been a team 
effort, and it will yield considerable protection when it is finally 
enacted into law.
  Madam Speaker, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is 
landmark human rights law. It recognizes the compelling body of medical 
evidence that unborn children feel pain and seeks to safeguard and 
protect vulnerable children from the violence of abortion.
  Dr. Anand, a leading expert in the area of fetal pain, has said: ``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.''
  Dr. Malloy testified before the Judiciary Committee and said:

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

  Today, Madam Speaker, surgeons routinely administer anesthesia to 
unborn children--society's littlest patients--to treat diseases and 
anomalies and to perform benign corrective surgeries.
  Today, there are Kermit Gosnells--you remember him, the infamous 
abortionist who was convicted 2 years ago today in Philadelphia. They 
are all over America inflicting not only violence and death on very 
young children, but excruciating pain as well. And, you know, when it 
comes to pain, I don't know about you, but I feel this way, I dread it, 
we all seek to avoid it, we even fear it, and we go to great and 
extraordinary lengths to mitigate its severity and duration. This 
legislation protects an entire age-specific class of kids from 
preventable pain and death.
  Madam Speaker, this is human rights legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Madam Speaker, two 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 cords snipped--all gruesome 
procedures causing excruciating pain to the victim.
  Today, the House considers landmark legislation authored by Trent 
Franks to protect unborn children beginning at the age of 20 weeks post 
fertilization from pain-filled abortions.
  The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is needed now more than 
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--35 aborted babies were found in his freezer.
  Men like Leroy Carhart, caught on video tape joking about his 
abortion toolkit--complete with a ``pickaxe'' and ``drill bit''--while 
describing a three day long late term abortion procedure and the infant 
victim as ``putting meat in a crock pot.''
  Or like Deborah Edge who wrote in an op-ed that she ``saw the 
abortionist puncture the soft spot in the baby's head or snip his neck 
if it was delivered alive.''
  Some euphemistically call this choice, but, a growing number of 
Americans rightly regard it as violence against children. And huge 
majorities--60% according to November 2014 Quinnipiac poll--want it 
stopped!
  Fresh impetus for the 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, a New York Times article titled: ``Premature 
Babies May Survive at 22 Weeks if Treated'' touted the Journal's 
extraordinary findings of survival and hope. (Let me note that these 22 
week old children referred to in the Times articles are the same age as 
the 20 week children that will be protected by this bill. The only 
difference is the method used to calculate age.)
  Just imagine, Madam Speaker, preemies at 20 weeks are surviving as 
technology and medical science advance. And some like 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 survive if 
treated humanely, with expertise and compassion--not the cruelty of the 
abortion.
  That is why, H.R. 36 requires that a late abortion permitted under 
limited circumstances provide the ``best opportunity for the unborn 
child to survive'' and that ``a second physician trained in neonatal 
resuscitation'' be ``present and prepared to provide care to a child'' 
consistent with the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act recognizes the medical 
evidence that unborn children feel pain.
  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 on 
unborn children have seen those babies flinch, jerk, and recoil from 
sharp objects and incisions.
  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 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.''
  Dr. Malloy 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.''

[[Page H2932]]

  Other provisions in H.R. 36 include:
  An Informed Consent Form including the age of the child; a 
description of the law; an explanation that if the baby is born-alive, 
he or she will be given medical assistance and transported to a 
hospital; and information about the woman's right to sue if these 
protections are not followed. Women deserve this information.
  The woman is empowered with a Civil Right of Action, so she may sue 
abortion providers who fail to comply with the law. Parents are also 
given a civil right of action if the law is not followed with regard to 
their minor daughter.
  In the case of a minor who is pregnant as a result of rape or incest 
and is having an abortion at 20 weeks or later, the abortion provider 
must notify either social services, or law enforcement to ensure the 
safety of the child and stop any ongoing abuse.
  In the case of an adult who is pregnant as a result of a sexual 
assault and is having an abortion at 20 weeks or later, the provider 
must ensure that she has received medical treatment or counseling at 
least 48 hours prior to the abortion.
  Compliance with State Laws including parental involvement 
requirements, and state reporting requirements is required.
  The National Center for Health Statistics will issue an Annual 
Statistical Report (without personally identifying information) 
providing statistical information about abortions carried out after 20 
weeks post-fertilization age.
  Finally, 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.
  Today, there are Kermit Gosnells all over America inflicting not only 
violence, cruelty, and death on very young children, but excruciating 
pain as well. This legislation protects an entire age specific class of 
kids from preventable pain--and death.

                    [From Americans United for Life]

          Backgrounder: Maternal Health and Late-Term Abortion


    abortion poses significant risks to maternal health by 20 weeks 
                               gestation

       A well-respected peer-reviewed journal--one which is also 
     frequently cited by abortion advocates--notes that, 
     ``Abortion has a higher medical risk to women when the 
     procedure is performed later in pregnancy. Compared to 
     abortion at eight weeks of an unborn child's gestation or 
     earlier, the relative risk increases exponentially at higher 
     gestations.'' (L.A. Bartlett et al., Risk factors for legal 
     induced abortion-related mortality in the United States, 
     Obstetrics & Gynecology 103(4):729-37 (2004)). From the 
     Bartlett study:
       ``The risk of death associated with abortion increases with 
     the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million 
     abortions at or before eight weeks gestation to one per 
     29,000 abortions at sixteen to twenty weeks and one per 
     11,000 abortions at twenty-one or more weeks.''
       As noted in the Bartlett study, gestational age is the 
     strongest risk factor for abortion-related mortality. 
     Compared to abortion at eight weeks gestation, the relative 
     risk of mortality increases significantly (by 38 percent for 
     each additional week) at higher gestations.
       In other words, a woman seeking an abortion at 20 weeks is 
     35 times more likely to die from abortion than she was in the 
     first trimester. At 21 weeks or more, she is 91 times more 
     likely to die from abortion than she was in the first 
     trimester.
       Moreover, the researchers in the Bartlett study concluded 
     that it may not be possible to reduce the risk of death in 
     later-term abortions because of the ``inherently greater 
     technical complexity of later abortions.'' This is because 
     later-term abortions require a greater degree of cervical 
     dilation, with an increased blood flow in a later-term 
     abortion which predisposes the woman to hemorrhage, and 
     because the myometrium is relaxed and more subject to 
     perforation.
       The same exact study is relied upon by the pro-abortion 
     Guttmacher Institute in its Facts on Induced Abortion in the 
     United States. In fact, Guttmacher emphasizes the increased 
     risk by setting it apart in the text:
       The risk of death associated with abortion increases with 
     the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million 
     abortions at or before eight weeks to one per 29,000 at 16-20 
     weeks--and one per 11,000 at 21 or more weeks.
       At least two studies have now concluded that second-
     trimester abortions (13-24 weeks) and third-trimester 
     abortions (25-26 weeks) pose more serious risks to women's 
     physical health than first-trimester abortions. Other 
     researchers confirm a substantially increased risk of death 
     from abortions performed later in gestation, equaling or 
     surpassing the risk of death from live birth. Researchers 
     have also found that women who undergo abortions at 13 weeks 
     or beyond report ``more disturbing dreams, more frequent 
     reliving of the abortion, and more trouble falling asleep.''
       Further, even Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion 
     provider in the United States, agrees that abortion becomes 
     riskier later in pregnancy. Planned Parenthood states on its 
     national website, ``The risks [of surgical abortion] increase 
     the longer you are pregnant. They also increase if you have 
     sedation or general anesthesia [which would be necessary at 
     or after 20 weeks gestation].''
       When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, there 
     was no evidence in the record related to medical data showing 
     the health risks to women from abortion. The ``abortion is 
     safer than childbirth'' mantra of 1973 has been refuted by 
     the plethora of peer-reviewed studies published in the last 
     40 years. Specifically, recent studies demonstrate that 
     childbirth is safer than abortion especially at later 
     gestations.
       Moreover, studies reveal that abortion carries serious 
     long-term risks other than the risk of death. These studies 
     reveal significant long-term physical and psychological risks 
     inherent in abortion--risks that, as agreed by both pro-life 
     and pro-abortion advocates, increase with advancing 
     gestational age.
       In sum, it is undisputed that the later in pregnancy an 
     abortion occurs, the riskier it is and the greater the chance 
     for significant complications.

  Mr. COHEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, which 
amounts to nothing less than an assault on women's fundamental rights. 
This is about a woman's ability to make her own decisions in 
consultation with her doctor, not politicians.
  Not only does this unconstitutional bill run afoul of longstanding 
judicial precedent, but it will also jeopardize women's health by 
banning abortion after 20 weeks even in cases were pregnancy 
complications arise from serious health issues like pulmonary 
hypertension, heart condition, kidney disease, and cancer.
  What about the life of the mother? Women facing desperate medical 
situations will see their healthcare options restricted through this 
unacceptable bill.
  Furthermore, rape and incest victims will face additional hurdles 
when terminating a pregnancy. Doctors and healthcare providers will 
encounter threats of fines and even imprisonment when they are simply 
trying to provide compassionate care to women in need.
  Madam Speaker, this bill inserts the government into one of the most 
personal decisions a woman can make and would interfere with the 
relationship between women and their doctors. So much for getting 
government off my back. I would like to see the government out of my 
bedroom.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I now yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, our Declaration of Independence states 
that everyone is endowed by our creator with an unalienable right to 
life. Recognition of God-given rights is part of who we are.
  Indeed, who could forget President Kennedy's words more than 50 years 
ago when he said:

       Our rights do not come from the generosity of the State but 
     from the hand of God.

  This legislation expands protections for the right to life. It 
recognizes that a class of children, unborn babies older than 20 weeks 
who feel the pain of abortion, should be protected.
  We must stand in solidarity with these vulnerable children and 
affirm: we will protect you.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 36.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, this is an outrage. We are 
again debating a bill that takes away women's constitutional rights.
  I agree with the gentleman from Arizona that we are privileged. We 
are privileged to be Members of Congress and represent our districts 
and our country, but we are not medical experts, and we are not 
privileged to insert ourselves into these most personal decisions that 
must remain with women, their doctors, their families, and their faith.
  Clearly absent from this Congress' agenda is any discussion about 
persistent wage inequality hurting women and their families. What about 
paid parental leave? or making sure families get access to quality 
child care? What are we doing about feeding hungry children? or making 
sure that every child can access education? How about anything at all 
concerning women that doesn't have to do with restricting reproductive 
rights?

[[Page H2933]]

  Let's call this bill what it is. It is an unconstitutional bill that 
would force survivors of sexual assault and incest to jump through 
hoops in order to get the medical care they need. This bill is an 
insult to women and to their families.
  As women and families are working hard to move this country forward, 
we are seeing a Republican Congress obsessed with moving us backwards.
  I urge this Congress to get back to work for them and reject this 
unconstitutional and insulting bill.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Babin).
  Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 36, 
the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
  This bill takes an important step to protect innocent life. 
Scientific evidence shows that unborn babies have the capacity to 
experience pain after 20 weeks. Ending these lives through abortion is 
both unconscionable and inhumane.
  As Members of Congress, it is our duty to protect those who are 
defenseless. Our bill affirms the humanity of the unborn while curbing 
the inhumanity of abortion. As one of seven children, with five 
children of my own, and grandfather of 12, I ask my colleagues to 
support this pro-life bill.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Here we are again, at a time when this Congress should be focusing on 
the American people's top priorities, drawing our economy, creating 
good-paying jobs, dealing with crumbling infrastructure, dealing with 
the big challenges that the American people sent us to do, and we are 
not doing that; we continue yet another attack on women's health.
  Healthcare decisions should be made between a woman and her doctor, 
not politicians in Washington. Let me repeat, healthcare decisions 
should be made between a woman and her doctor, not politicians here in 
Washington. We need to work together on the things we agree on. This 
keeps coming up over and over again.
  American people, American women, deserve the respect that should be 
accorded to them to exercise their right of privacy and their 
constitutionally protected right and not have people here in this 
Chamber continually attack their decisions that should be made in 
direct personal private consultation with their physician. To do 
anything other than that, I think, is taking this country and this 
Congress in the wrong direction.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee for her work on this bill and all of my colleagues who had a 
hand in it, particularly the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) for 
authoring this important legislation.
  I think most people would be surprised to learn that the United 
States is one of only seven countries in the world that allows elective 
abortions to be performed after 20 weeks. Science has shown us that 
unborn children can feel pain. Some may argue against this; but then 
why would unborn babies, who are given lifesaving operations while 
still in the womb, routinely given anesthesia?
  The Founding Fathers strongly believed that human beings are created 
equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, 
among which is the right to life. It is the duty of the Members of 
Congress to protect those who cannot speak for themselves.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bera), on the day after Yogi Berra's 90th birthday--not 
related.
  Mr. BERA. Madam Speaker, I am a doctor. I have been a doctor for over 
20 years. When I graduated from medical school, I took an oath. That 
oath contains that promise of patient autonomy, that I am going to sit 
with my patients, I am going to answer their questions, and I am going 
to empower them to make the decisions that best fit their lives and 
their health care. That is sacred to the oath that I swore when I 
became a doctor.
  This bill will make it criminal for me to do my job as a doctor. It 
is all about empowering our patients to make the decisions that best 
fit their lives, answering their questions. It is personal.
  I think about this as a father of a daughter. I want my daughter to 
grow up in a country where she is in charge of her own healthcare 
decisions. When we think about limited government, none of us wants the 
government to come into the examining room and get between that doctor-
patient relationship.
  This is sacred. This is what health care is all about. It is about 
working with our patients, answering their questions, and putting them 
in charge of their own healthcare decisions.
  This is a bad bill; this is a bill with massive government overreach. 
Vote against this bill, and let us do our job as doctors.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
  Mr. CRAMER. Madam Speaker, the most basic responsibility of a 
government of the people, by the people, and for the people is to 
protect the people. We protect our senior citizens' economic security 
with Social Security. We protect our country with our national 
security. We have a Department of Homeland Security to protect all 
people.

  It seems that the very least we can do for the most vulnerable, 
defenseless, and innocent among us is to protect them with this basic 
right, to protect them from the imposition of the excruciating pain 
imposed on them by government sanction no less--abortion.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding and for his leadership.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 36. It endangers women's health. It 
contains a woefully inadequate rape exception, is patently 
unconstitutional, and it contains no health exception for the mother.
  The entire premise that women must provide ``proof of rape'' is 
preposterous and hurtful to women who have already faced incredible 
trauma. Most of us cannot begin to fathom what a woman has faced in 
these situations. The FBI rates rape the second worst crime, preceded 
only by murder, in terms of the destruction and continuing harm to the 
victim.
  This is truly adding insult to injury. The majority party expects 
survivors to be mindful of keeping good medical paper records and to 
file paperwork that they, the majority, have decided that the rape 
victim should file. The reality is that abortions after 20 weeks are 
rare and represent just 1.5 percent of pregnancies that are terminated.
  In almost all of these cases, the women choosing an abortion are 
doing so because there is a grave problem with their pregnancy and 
their own health that affects their fetus. Some fetuses are 
incompatible with life, and in some cases, going to full term would 
destroy a woman's ability to have future children.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. COHEN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Even after four decades of 
settled law, some of my colleagues still refuse to cede women their 
constitutional right and the autonomy and human dignity that goes with 
being allowed to make your own decisions about your own body and your 
own health care.
  The party of individual rights and states' rights wants to go into 
medical, personal decisions of women in this country with their 
doctors.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this awful bill, H.R. 36, and 
recognize that women are both capable and prepared to make decisions 
about their own bodies and their own medical care.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King).

[[Page H2934]]

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  I rise in support of H.R. 36.
  I would point out that we have had an estimate of 58 million 
abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade. That is roughly 14 million 
by Planned Parenthood alone, and it is about 1 million abortions a year 
in this country.
  We ended partial birth abortion for one reason: because those babies' 
lives were ended the moment before they could scream for their own 
mercy. Now, with the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, we are 
going to be able to stop that abortion that is coming because we can 
see in 4-D ultrasound that these babies are writhing for their own 
mercy.
  These babies need to be brought forward into us so that they can 
live, learn, laugh, and love so that, one day, they can stand here and 
celebrate the life that we gave them.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to make note that we have the American College of Nurse-
Midwives; the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; the 
American Medical Student Association; the American Medical Women's 
Association; the American Nurses Association; the American 
Psychological Association; and many, many others against this bill. I 
would like to hear on the other side some of the medical groups that 
are supportive of this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).
  Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
  This bill will protect women and children by establishing Federal 
legal protections from unborn babies of 20 weeks. Substantial evidence 
has shown that children at 20 weeks, or the fifth month of pregnancy, 
have the capacity to feel pain and, due to modern medicine, are 
increasingly likely to survive a premature birth.
  Furthermore, this bill protects the health of mothers when they are 
at their most vulnerable state. At 20 weeks, a woman is 35 times more 
likely to die from abortion than she would in the first trimester. 
After 21 weeks, that risk of death for the mother increases almost one 
hundredfold.
  It is fitting that this bill comes before the House floor on National 
Women's Health Week, a weeklong observance led by the U.S. Department 
of Health encouraging women to prioritize their health.
  I am pleased to stand in support of this piece of women's health 
legislation today. This bill will empower women in their healthcare 
provisions and protect the lives of the innocent unborn.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Pain-
Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
  This bill protects unborn children and ensures that those born alive 
are given the same level of care as other premature infants.
  I would like to introduce you to Micah Pickering and his parents. His 
mom, Danielle, recalls being told that her son, if born early, was not 
going to be viable at 20 weeks. She says:

       We were told that our baby would not cry upon birth. We 
     were told that he would be stillborn. We were told that, if 
     by some miracle he survived, he had a 95 percent chance of 
     horrible, life-altering disabilities that would likely 
     include not walking, not talking, not even eating on his own. 
     On the morning Micah was born, he defied all odds. We didn't 
     know what God's will for Micah was, but we do now--it is to 
     be a voice for all of those other babies.

  I insert into the Record Danielle Pickering's full story and letter.

                            ``Miracle Micah''

                      (By Danielle Pickering, Mom)

       My son was not ``viable''. It was a word we were coming to 
     hate. It all started the day my water broke, at 21 weeks. I 
     was treated as if I had a Urinary Tract Infection, instead of 
     a rupture of membranes. I was sent home with no instructions 
     to do anything outside of my normal routine. I worked 8 hours 
     a day in a warehouse, I cooked meals for my husband and 
     myself, and I went to yard sales like normal, all with my 
     water broken. One week later, at exactly 22 weeks, I started 
     having small contractions and bleeding. My husband and I 
     rushed to the Emergency Room, where they confirmed that my 
     water was at less than 1 CM, and that I would be ambulanced 
     to the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics for the 
     remainder of my pregnancy.
       When I was admitted my heart rate was high, baby's heart 
     rate was high, and I was running a fever. They determined 
     that since baby was not ``viable'' they would like to induce 
     labor as they feared I had a life threatening infection. We 
     called on everyone we knew to start praying, and within two 
     hours I was now stable. We were then told that it was our 
     decision to induce or to hold out and see what baby does, but 
     they couldn't do anything at that time to stop labor. We 
     decided to wait. We couldn't induce when we were sure this 
     baby was not going to make it.
       For the next three days we were told horrific statistics 
     that no parent should ever have to face. We were told that 
     our baby would not cry upon birth. We were told that he will 
     likely be stillborn. We were told that, if by some miracle he 
     survived he had a 95% chance of horrible life altering 
     disabilities that would likely include not walking, not 
     talking, not even eating on his own.
       On the morning of 22 weeks and 4 days, Micah was born. He 
     defied all odds and cried two times upon birth. This was 
     music to this devastated mom's ears. I didn't get to see him. 
     He was rushed away by a huge team of Doctors and Nurses 
     dedicated to saving his life, as that was the choice we had 
     made. You see, we were told that we didn't have to choose to 
     intubate him and put him on a ventilator, but we had to do 
     all we could to save this precious life. He had trusted his 
     Mommy from conception to care and nourish him, and though my 
     body was failing him, I wasn't going to! I was going to fight 
     for him. I was going to advocate for him! I was going to be 
     the voice of this tiny, fragile little boy who already I was 
     so in love with, and hadn't even seen yet and thanks to an 
     anterior placenta I hadn't even felt him kick or move yet.
       The second I was able to meet Micah changed my life. He was 
     so small. I didn't know what to expect. Would he look 
     ``normal''? Could I bond with this baby? Those questions were 
     a mess in my head as I was wheeled into his room two hours 
     after his birth. The sight I saw was a perfectly formed baby. 
     Lots of tubes and monitors all set up to be an artificial 
     womb to this baby born too soon. My husband and I stood there 
     just staring at this beautiful little boy who we were told we 
     couldn't hold as the skin was so sensitive it would hurt him. 
     We were told we could press lightly on the skin so we each 
     put our hand near him. HE reached up, and held our fingers. 
     This was the strongest grasp I would ever feel. I never knew 
     how strong a baby was until that moment! He had a powerful 
     grip on our hands, and now our hearts.
       Micah was about to spend the next 4 months in the Neonatal 
     Intensive Care Unit. He was going to go through heart 
     surgery, at 2 weeks old and just over a pound. He was going 
     to hang on to life by a thread some days. There were days I 
     couldn't leave his room. I slept on the floor next to his 
     warmer bed many nights, because my heart was so grieved for 
     this tiny baby and I couldn't leave him alone. He was going 
     to go through every ventilator they had available. He was 
     going to be on Nitric Oxide to help his lungs. He would get 
     scores of X-Rays and heel pricks. He was going to do 
     something amazing-all because we were able to say ``Yes, 
     Please save our baby''.
       Here was this little baby who was on morphine for pain. He 
     still had his eyes fused shut. You could see his chest 
     vibrate from the ventilators. It was heartbreaking. Here was 
     a boy who we would see get to take his first sneeze. His 
     first smile. We would get to see the hiccups, from the 
     outside. We would watch his eyes slowly unfuse. We would 
     watch his hair grow in and we would watch his body develop. 
     It was indescribably the most joyful time of our life.
       We knew the Lord had a plan for Micah. Our prayer to God 
     from early on was that Micah's life, Micah's story, and 
     Micah's example would help others, and could somehow save 
     other babies born too soon. We didn't know what the will for 
     Micah was, but we do now. It was to be a voice for all those 
     other babies. We didn't understand at the time that Micah was 
     right on time, but now we do. Until you are faced with a 
     situation like this, you cannot grasp the intensity that will 
     become every decision. You can read every doctor report, you 
     can get advice from everyone. You can be knowledgeable on 
     every part of prematurity, but that does not change the fact 
     that Micah was just as much full of life at 22.4 weeks as he 
     now is at almost 3 years old. Every scary moment has been 
     worth it. Every doctor visit, every oxygen tank we went 
     through, every middle of the night phone call from 
     Neonatologists, was worth it. We now have a very perfect 
     almost 3 year old we get to call son, when we were preparing 
     for empty arms. Our hearts are full because we chose to give 
     him a chance at life.

  Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, we must protect unborn children from 
cruel suffering, and we must ensure that any survivors get treated like 
any other premature baby. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 36.

[[Page H2935]]

  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues have no interest in 
preventing abortions after 20 weeks. The motivation behind H.R. 36 
could not be more transparent. They want to make abortion after 20 
weeks illegal and abortions before 20 weeks impossible.
  Consider the story of a young woman named Josephine, who recently 
moved to Florida from Texas with her two kids after escaping an abusive 
husband.
  While trying to build a stable home for her children, she was raped, 
and she became pregnant. She couldn't afford an abortion or a trip to 
her provider who was more than 80 miles away, so Josephine attempted to 
terminate the pregnancy herself by ingesting poison. She ended up 
hospitalized, needing several blood transfusions. She was still 
pregnant. By the time she gathered enough resources to cover her 
procedure and transportation to a provider nearly 80 miles away, she 
was 23 weeks pregnant. If this Republican majority were to have its 
way, Josephine would be denied access to a safe and legal abortion.
  From regulating providers out of business, to requiring waiting 
periods, to mandating counseling and medically unnecessary ultrasounds, 
this Republican majority has made securing an abortion--has made 
exercising a woman's constitutional right--a long and expensive 
process. Let's reject this bill and, instead, work to ensure that all 
women can control their own bodies, their own health, and their own 
destinies.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Harris).
  Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 36. Let's 
call this bill what it is--it is a late-term abortion ban. That is what 
it is, and a majority of Americans agree, Madam Speaker, that late-term 
abortions should be illegal in this country.
  Whether it is unconstitutional is not up for this body to determine. 
I believe the Supreme Court will rule that this is constitutional 
because there is a reason a majority of Americans believe that late-
term abortions should be illegal--because that baby is developed at 20 
weeks postfertilization, developed enough to perceive pain. That is how 
developed. It is developed enough to survive outside the womb. That is 
how developed. That is why a majority of Americans believe that that 
baby has rights as well. That is what we are here to do today. H.R. 36 
preserves the rights of that baby to survive.
  I practiced OB anesthesia for over 20 years. I was always amazed 
that, in the labor and delivery suite, we would deliver 21-week 
postfertilization babies and that, down the corridor, they would abort 
them. This bill says that, if that baby being aborted is born alive, 
someone is going to actually resuscitate that baby. That is what we 
need, Madam Speaker. That is why I support H.R. 36.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Alabama (Mrs. Roby).
  Mrs. ROBY. I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee and everyone who 
has worked so hard on this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I have sat here for 25 minutes--or for however long--
listening to this debate, and I have been struck by the opposition to 
this bill's constant and consistent argument that this is about leaving 
these decisions to the mothers and their doctors.
  What about the baby? Who is standing up for that baby who cannot 
speak for himself? That is what we are doing here today.
  This is such an important measure on behalf of those who don't have a 
voice and who can feel pain. It is a shame that such a humane and 
compassionate measure has opposition at all, especially since great 
care has been taken to protect women and babies in this bill. If we 
won't stop abortions at 5 months, when unborn babies feel pain, when 
will we stop it? There have to be limits. Even those of us who want to 
end abortion altogether in any form support this restriction. Do you 
know why? It protects babies. It saves babies. It protects women. It 
assigns a greater value to human life.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
  Mr. FLEMING. I thank my good friend from Tennessee.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today as a physician, as a father, and as a 
grandfather in support of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child 
Protection Act.
  It is no surprise that unborn children as young as 20 weeks 
postfertilization feel, respond to, and recoil from pain. These tiny 
forming human beings make faces, yawn, stretch, and suck their thumbs. 
I have my own granddaughter, who is now about 20 months of age. When we 
viewed her 4-D ultrasound, her face compared to today is almost exactly 
the same. It is unbelievable how humanlike, how much like a baby, a 
baby really is in the womb because--let's admit it--it is a child; it 
is a human life.
  We celebrate when our friends and families post these precious 
ultrasound pictures. In fact, life is always a celebration, and it is 
only right that we should be vigilant to ensure that the womb remains 
the most peaceful, protected place for a child to grow and be nurtured. 
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 36, which will protect children in 
the fifth month of development from the excruciating pain and intended 
violent death of an abortion.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Utah (Mrs. Love).
  Mrs. LOVE. Madam Speaker, I was not planning on speaking today. I 
didn't put my name on the list to speak today. I was actually sitting 
in my office, listening to the debate about this bill, and I 
started thinking of my three children. I started thinking about the 
decisions that we have to make in order to protect them, and I am 
disappointed that there is even opposition to this piece of 
legislation.

  I want you to know that we, as adults, have a voice. We are able to 
speak. We are able to speak in opposition to things, but we have 
children who do not have a voice. Those babies whom we know can feel 
pain do not have a voice.
  Now, I want everyone who is watching today--because I am not trying 
to convince my colleagues--to think of their children, to think of 
their nieces, their nephews, their grandchildren--the ones that they 
love. Would they inflict this kind of pain to keep them from coming 
into the world?
  We have a moral obligation in this country to protect life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness. It is time that we do our job--life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 1 minute 
remaining, and the gentleman from Tennessee has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. COHEN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, if people, I think, listen to this debate, they would 
see one thing clearly in that there is a difference on the two sides--a 
difference in perspective and a difference as to the facts.
  Some say that, clearly, the fetus feels pain. My data shows that the 
majority of medical opinion says that the fetus does not; and Dr. 
Anand, whom they cite--my research shows--has retracted his position 
and doesn't want to be involved in this debate, and he is an outlier.
  The bottom line is there are differences--differences as to the facts 
as well as to the opinions. What that should say to anybody who watches 
this debate, Madam Speaker, is this issue shouldn't be decided by 
politicians but by medical experts and by women with the people they 
trust--medical experts, not politicians--and by women with the advice 
of the people they trust.
  The truth of this debate came down to a lady from North Carolina who 
testified contrary to what she said in January. In January, she said 
the bill that came before this House was not a good bill and that it 
shouldn't come to the House. It was withdrawn because incest is incest, 
and it shouldn't be seen that people 18 and over couldn't get an 
abortion if they were victims of incest. This bill allows it. She has 
changed her position, and at the close of her statement, she said: I 
will not rest until abortion is illegal.

[[Page H2936]]

  That is what this is about. It is the beginning of the end of 
abortion at 20 weeks, at 17 weeks, at 12 weeks, at 1 week, at 
conception. This is an antiabortion bill. It is not about fetal pain. 
It is not about 20 weeks. That is what it is about. American women need 
to wake up.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, during the course of this debate, we have 
heard more than a few mischaracterizations against this legislation. In 
truth, this is just a modest, compassionate bill that does not in any 
way change abortion law for the first 5 months of pregnancy.
  As a nurse for more than 40 years, I know that late-term abortion is 
not health, and it is not caring. It takes an innocent life we know can 
feel pain inside the womb and a life that is increasingly viable 
outside the womb. This is a human rights issue, and we have the 
responsibility to act. Therefore, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 36.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 36, the 
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
  As a father of five children, I understand the precious joy children 
bring to the world. I firmly believe as a Member of Congress, I should 
defend the sanctity of life. I believe it is morally imperative to 
protect those who are unable to protect themselves.
  As a cosponsor of the bipartisan legislation, I am confident this is 
a step in the right direction to protecting unborn children at the 
moment that they can feel pain. It is important that Congress continue 
to pursue legislation that protects the right to life.
  I believe that most constituents in Iowa agree with me. According to 
a recent Quinnipiac poll, 62% of Americans support a ban on abortions 
after 20 weeks or earlier. Of women polled, 68% supported this bill's 
proposed ban on abortions.
  I will continue to defend the lives of the unborn and I urge my 
colleagues in the Senate to act on this measure.
  Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, there are countless reasons why my 
colleagues should reject H.R. 36, the misnamed Pain-Capable Unborn 
Child Protection Act. I am unequivocally opposed to the substance of 
the bill and the process by which it arrived on the House Floor today.
   According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a 
little over one percent of abortions that are performed annually are 
resulting from pregnancies over 21 weeks. There are a variety of 
reasons why abortion care may become necessary at this stage of a 
pregnancy. Some may not know that they are pregnant; some, barred by 
public funding bans on abortion, need time to gather the funds for the 
procedure; and sadly, a large majority of these abortions are medically 
necessary due to severe fetal anomalies or risks to the mother's 
health. Doctors must be allowed to offer their patients the best care 
possible. Tragically, doctors in violation of this bill, were it to 
become law, could face jail time. The new version of H.R. 36 puts even 
more burdens on doctors in an all out effort to prevent them from 
performing the procedure so women will have nowhere to go for abortion 
services.
   As you'll recall, H.R. 36 was introduced on the very first day of 
the new 114th Congress and just two months later, the Republican 
Majority rushed this anti-family bill to the House Floor. However, with 
Members of its own party rejecting H.R. 36, the bill was pulled from 
the floor the night before it was to be debated on and another anti-
choice bill was put in its place. It has taken over a month to make a 
bad bill even worse? The revised bill also forces adult rape survivors 
either to report the crime or to seek medical care at least 48 hours 
prior to getting an abortion. In order for a woman to comply with this 
requirement, not only does a woman have to see a provider other than 
the one providing the abortion, but she cannot see any provider in the 
same facility where abortions are performed.
   While we recently marked the 42nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade 
decision allowing women to make their own reproductive choices, this 
legislation is nothing but a transparent attempt to restrict their 
choices once again. It takes any medical decision that should be made 
by a woman on the advice of her doctor and puts it into the hands of 
legislators. Now, I know there are several House Members who are also 
doctors, but I had no idea so many Members--medical or otherwise--feel 
empowered to take this decision on to themselves rather than leaving 
these reproductive decisions to the person doing the reproducing: the 
individual woman. I am particularly surprised that so many men feel 
comfortable making personal bodily medical decisions for women.
   Madam Speaker, H.R. 36 is simply outrageous. This bill is 
unconstitutional and a blatant attempt to challenge Roe v. Wade at the 
expense of the reproductive health of our nation's women. And they 
claim there is no war on women. How can they say that when they try to 
pass bills like this?
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36, 
the so-called ``Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act''.
  I am disappointed that yet again, Congress is debating and voting on 
this severely flawed legislation. H.R. 36 ignores the health issues and 
real life situations that women can face during pregnancy.
  This bill is not based on sound science. And it is certainly not 
based on the real experiences of American women and families. This bill 
is simply yet another attack on women's health.
  Women want--and need--to make their own personal health care 
decisions in consultation with their doctor and spiritual advisor--not 
their Member of Congress. It is time to start trusting our nation's 
women and families to make their own personal health care decisions.
  Instead of this political attack on women's personal decision making, 
we should be focusing on empowering women by expanding education 
opportunities, ensuring equal pay for equal work and increasing access 
to quality child care--these are the things that really matter to women 
and their families. And these are the things that are going to 
strengthen working families and our economy.
  We have many critical issues facing this nation that Congress should 
be focused on and this is certainly not one of them.
  Again, I would like to state my strong opposition to this misguided 
and out of touch piece of legislation and I urge my colleagues to vote 
no on H.R. 36.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 255, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. I am in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Brownley of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     36 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to 
     report the same to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 6, line 11, insert after ``life'' the following: ``or 
     health''.
       Page 6, beginning on line 12, strike ``whose'' and all that 
     follows through ``conditions'' on line 17.
       Page 11, line 13, insert after ``life'' the following: ``or 
     health''.
       Page 11, beginning on line 14, strike ``by'' and all that 
     follows through ``injury'' on line 15.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.

                              {time}  1645

  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Madam Speaker, this is the final 
amendment to H.R. 36, which will not kill the bill or send it back to 
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final 
passage, as amended.
  My amendment would ensure that nothing in the bill would prevent a 
woman from terminating her pregnancy after 20 weeks if her health were 
at risk. Only 1.1 percent of abortions performed in the United States 
occur after the 20-week mark. These rare procedures are often the most 
medically difficult and dangerous cases where women--many of whom want 
and have dreamed of being parents--are faced with impossible decisions.
  As it is written, H.R. 36 would force a doctor to wait until a 
condition becomes life threatening before performing an abortion. It 
shows no concern for the long-term health of the mother, her future 
ability to bear children, or her right to make her own medical 
decisions.
  It ignores that there are very real and very serious reasons why a 
woman may need an abortion later in pregnancy. For example, pregnant 
women with severe fetal anomalies or women whose amniotic sacs rupture 
prematurely and cannot support the fetus

[[Page H2937]]

would be forced to give birth. The bill also treats doctors as 
criminals for providing care that has been the law of the land for 42 
years, and it puts doctors' safety at risk by requiring public 
disclosure of doctors who provide abortion care around the country.
  Both the American Medical Association and the American Congress of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists understand that there is no appropriate 
one-size-fits-all solution. They oppose bills not based on sound 
science and that interfere with the physician's ability to provide the 
highest quality of care.
  H.R. 36 does more than endanger the health and lives of women. It 
also robs rape victims of their constitutionally protected right to 
choose. The bill's revised rape exception continues to question rape 
victims' honesty by requiring that adult rape victims obtain counseling 
or medical treatment 48 hours before obtaining an abortion and 
prohibits both services from being performed by a woman's regular OB/
GYN. By placing these onerous burdens on women, this bill revictimizes 
women who have already been traumatized and denies women the right to 
choose their own doctor.
  Further, many women, especially victims of abuse, do not report rape 
for fear of reprisal. The National Institute of Justice estimates that 
only 35 percent of women report rape. Forcing a survivor to report her 
sexual assault before she can terminate a pregnancy resulting from rape 
or incest denies her basic rights.
  If we are serious about reducing the number of abortions, we should 
improve access to birth control and family planning, we should support 
comprehensive sexual education, we should do anything but pass this 
misguided, misinformed, and ill-conceived legislation.
  Instead of bills that harm women, we should work together on 
bipartisan legislation to help women and families, including passing 
legislation that provides equal pay for equal work, access to child 
care, and paid family leave. We should also pass a transportation bill, 
fix our crumbling infrastructure, create jobs, and strengthen the 
economy. Backward bills, not based in science, that fail to respect a 
woman's right to privacy and right to make her own health decisions 
have no place in local, State, or Federal legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit, vote 
``yes'' to protect women's health, vote ``yes'' for a woman's right to 
choose.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Washington is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Madam Speaker, we hold these truths to be 
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by 
their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these rights 
are the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  The bill before the House today affirms what a majority of Americans 
believe, that over halfway through a pregnancy, an unborn baby deserves 
the full protection of the law and the Constitution.
  As a mother of three and a legislator, I have always believed that 
every life has value, every life deserves the opportunity to reach its 
full potential. We live in an extraordinary time in which we are not 
bound by the conditions of our birth. We are not sentenced by our 
circumstance. And we should not be defined by what limits us but 
empowered by what we can become. As lawmakers, it is our responsibility 
to ensure that our laws reflect that.
  Medical science continues to evolve to create greater potential for 
life. Emerging research is challenging what we thought to be true of 
the earliest stages of human life. Just last week, The New York Times 
highlighted a study that showed a growing number of premature infants 
surviving after the point at which this bill would make abortion 
illegal.

  As a society, we need to ask whether we want to move forward with a 
better standard of living or if we want to rely on the outdated 
scientific research of the past. I want to legislate for the future, 
and the future will be defined by how we use the advancements taking 
place today to protect and improve human life.
  Those who represent the future are already there. There was a recent 
poll that 57 percent of millennials support this legislation, and they 
echo the voice of America. Sixty percent of Americans--Democrats, 
Republicans, Independents--support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child 
Protection Act.
  Abortion is really a symptom of larger challenges that exist in our 
society, and these challenges demand attention of lawmakers. Pretending 
that there is a one-size-fits-all approach to abortion ignores the 
complex circumstances that surround each woman who is forced to 
consider choosing an abortion.
  This bill recognizes that at the halfway point of a pregnancy, a baby 
who has developed 5 months, those circumstances are increasingly more 
unique. Research shows that abortion becomes riskier to a woman's 
health the later it occurs in pregnancy.
  We should not trivialize the decision to undertake an abortion at 20 
weeks by suggesting that it should be made without additional medical 
or emotional support. We should write laws that empower women to make 
these decisions. We should support laws that show compassion for women. 
We should trust individuals to make the best decisions for themselves. 
We want to empower every single person to reach their full potential.
  This country has made great strides in empowering all people, no 
matter where they started. That is why I am here, to stand as a fierce 
protector of every life. The human rights and dignity of each person 
should be reflected in every single piece of legislation we bring to 
the floor.
  This bill asks us to consider whether we, as a society, will tolerate 
abortion at any point of development, even though we know babies can 
feel pain at 20 weeks and survive outside the womb. This bill asks us 
to consider if it is compassionate to maintain a system that does 
nothing to offer emotional or medical support for a woman facing the 
most difficult decision of choosing an abortion 5 months into her 
pregnancy.
  These are questions that we must ask, and I am prepared to answer 
them by supporting the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and I 
urge my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. 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 the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 36, if ordered; passage of H.R. 2048; 
and agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 181, 
nays 246, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 222]

                               YEAS--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     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
     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
     Loebsack
     Lofgren

[[Page H2938]]


     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     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

                               NAYS--246

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     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
     Cuellar
     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)
     Graves (MO)
     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
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     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
     Peterson
     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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Barletta
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Capps
     Hinojosa

                              {time}  1721

  Messrs. McKINLEY and MARINO changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. HASTINGS, and Ms. MOORE changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 184, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 223]

                               AYES--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     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
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     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
     Langevin
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     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
     Peterson
     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

                               NOES--184

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     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
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     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
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)

[[Page H2939]]


     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

     Hice, Jody B.
       
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Barletta
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Capps
     Hinojosa


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1732

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________