[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 158 (Tuesday, October 3, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7686-H7694]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 36, PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD 
                             PROTECTION ACT

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 548 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 548

         Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 
     be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 36) to 
     amend title 18, United States Code, to protect pain-capable 
     unborn children, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.


[[Page H7687]]


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


                             General Leave

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 
548, which provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 36, the 
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
  This important bill protects and extends compassion to the most 
vulnerable among us, the unborn, by prohibiting abortions, with limited 
exceptions, after the point at which scientific evidence shows that an 
unborn child can feel pain.
  Mr. Speaker, this really should be called Micah's bill in honor of a 
little boy named Micah Pickering, who was here on the Hill last week 
with his mom. He was born at 20 weeks old. And we saw, and we see from 
babies like Micah, that with the right medical care, babies born at 20 
weeks can survive and grow into healthy adults.
  Micah's mother spoke last week about her experiences: ``When Micah 
was born, his eyes were still fused shut. His bones were not hardened 
yet. He couldn't breathe on his own. He was medicated to stay 
comfortable from pain. We were told not to touch his skin, as his skin 
was so sensitive it could hurt him and tear the skin. I was there to 
see his first set of hiccups, his first sneezes, and his first drop of 
milk placed on his lips. His first smile, his first laugh. He was 
alive. He was fighting. He wanted to live.''
  Today, Mr. Speaker, Micah is a healthy 5-year-old boy.
  Babies like Micah at 20 weeks have well developed brains and central 
nervous systems, developed enough so that medical evidence has 
increasingly confirmed these babies feel pain, and not only pain, but 
intense and possibly excruciating pain.
  Research also indicates that, after 20 weeks, an unborn baby's 
responses to painful stimuli are similar to adult responses, to the 
extent that when surgeons, Mr. Speaker, are performing in-utero 
surgery, corrective procedures on these unborn children, surgeons have 
seen babies flinch, jerk, and recoil from those sharp objects and 
incisions.
  In response to this, Mr. Speaker, surgeons routinely now administer 
anesthesia to unborn children in the womb before performing surgery. 
This anesthesia has been associated with a significant increase in 
babies' stress hormone levels during medical procedures.
  Mr. Speaker, late-term abortions, usually performed by inducing labor 
after the fetus has been injected with a lethal pharmacological agent 
or by the horrific practice of dismemberment, causing babies intense 
pain, should be illegal, and that is what this bill ensures.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this bill also takes important steps to 
protect women, providing exceptions for those cases of rape, and 
incest, and the life of the mother.
  H.R. 36 also provides women with a cause of action, allowing them to 
sue abortionists who don't provide protection for aborted babies who 
are born alive.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act protects the sanctity of 
life by ensuring protection from pain for the most vulnerable among us.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a moral obligation of this House and of our 
government. Therefore, I urge support for the rule to allow for 
consideration of H.R. 36.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, 44 years ago, the Supreme Court issued its landmark Roe 
v. Wade decision. It reaffirmed the constitutionally protected right of 
every woman to safe and legal healthcare, including the right to 
choose.
  When life puts a woman in even the toughest of circumstances, the 
highest court in the land said the decision that she makes should be 
hers, free from any interference from the government.
  Roe v. Wade is a firewall that women rely on, but with every passing 
year and every new session of Congress, politicians have tried to chip 
away at it brick by brick, hoping it will crumble away.
  Most politicians are not medical professionals. We shouldn't be 
meddling in healthcare decisions that should be made between a woman, 
her doctor, her family, and anyone else that she chooses to include. 
The American people are tired of politicians who are not doctors, often 
playing one on television with this medical decision.
  This is the only medical procedure that Congress has made an attempt 
to regulate, the only one, and it says quite plainly: We can't trust 
women to make a decision; we have to do it for them. The majority tries 
to direct this over and over again.
  The medical professionals whom we should be listening to all oppose 
this ban. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists call 
it a part of a legislative agenda that is ``not based on sound 
science'' and that ``attempt to prescribe how physicians should care 
for their patients.''
  That certainly speaks it loudly.
  The American Medical Association said that it ``strongly condemns any 
interference by the government or other third parties that causes a 
physician to compromise his or her medical judgment as to what 
information or treatment is in the best interest of the patient.''
  Conservative political groups have also been pushing the bill to try 
to use it to run up the score in the next election. Why do they do it? 
Well, the main sponsor of this bill has admitted--and I hope everybody 
hears this; this is a Congressman from Arizona who sponsors this bill, 
who admitted the abortion bans are, in his words, good politics--``it 
will cost some people the election, but it will cost more Democrats the 
election than it will Republicans. I am convinced that in very few 
districts in America someone will lose because they voted'' for this 
ban. ``And if that is the case, maybe they need a different district 
anyway,'' whatever that means.

  That makes it as plain as day, as far as I am concerned, as to why, 
year after year, for 40 years, we have been confronted with this.
  It is abhorrent to me, and it should be to everyone here, that 
matters of personal conscience are being reduced to who is up and who 
is down in the polls.
  This bill is dangerous, and it is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court 
established in Roe v. Wade, and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. 
Casey, that a woman has the unequivocal right to choose abortion care. 
This is the Constitution of the United States that we all justly 
revere.
  Meanwhile, every Federal court that has reached a decision on bans 
like this in States has blocked it every time. This includes rulings 
striking down bans in States like Arizona, Idaho, Arkansas, North 
Dakota.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill before us is nothing more than the latest 
attempt by the majority to pass off political posturing as proven 
science.
  Now, after birth, strangely, this body exhibits scarce attention to 
the well-being of the child, and that is proven by the fact that you 
cut back on food stamps; Women, Infants, and Children care; daycare; 
Head Start; one after the other, the same group that couldn't find it 
in their hearts last Friday to extend the Children's Health Insurance 
Program before it expired, along with community health services, which 
again helps children. More than 9 million children in America get their 
health insurance through the program that expired.
  The majority did absolutely nothing after 20 children, 6-year-olds 
and 7-year-olds, were shot and killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School 
in Newtown, Connecticut, 5 years ago. And funding, as I said, for both 
food stamps and the school lunch program is routinely cut.
  I don't know anything else to call that but pure hypocrisy: We love 
it until it is born, and then it is somebody else's problem.

[[Page H7688]]

  A 3-year-old girl in my district was recently killed by the adults 
she believed were supposed to take care of her. They abused her so 
violently that she was bruised from head to toe and was internally 
hurt. There were adults around, but not a single one helped her.
  The Child Protective Services of Monroe County got two reports about 
abuse and neglect, but the agency was too overworked and stretched too 
thin to act in time, which is another hypocrisy: We are not going to 
fund those programs enough so that little children would live. Three 
years old, and nobody lifted a finger to help this child. They did 
nothing to save her life.
  This is just some of the reality that children face today. All too 
often, this Congress does absolutely nothing to address it. To truly 
care about children is to care for them long after they are born.
  Now, we have taken up this bill before, and it was a one-house bill, 
never able to pass the Senate, and I sincerely hope this bill sees that 
same fate.
  When the American people went to the ballot box, they were electing 
politicians, not somebody to meddle around with their medical needs. It 
is simply appalling. Just remind yourself that the only procedure that 
we deal with is the fact of a woman's right to choose, which is 
protected by the Constitution of the United States. Enough already.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority acts like a group of elected physicians. It 
has some. They are quiet. It is shameful.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today not as an elected doctor, not as any 
elected thing except as a Member of Congress. But also I rise today as 
a father of a child who we were told before she was born that it would 
probably be best to kill her; that she had a disability, and it was 
probably best that there would be better choices for us to make in life 
than to not have her.
  I rise today for Micah's bill simply for those that the statement has 
been made that once children are here, there are problems that are 
political choices and life circumstances. Those are things that we have 
to deal with and that we should actually look at, but those are only 
available for those who are lucky enough to have a birthday. This bill 
is really about a birthday. It is about giving the unborn a chance at 
life.
  It is interesting to me today, Mr. Speaker, that many medical 
professionals who are against this bill also will choose to anesthetize 
those same babies in the womb because of their reaction to the 
procedure. They don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about 
something else.
  But I simply come back to saying that this bill is about life. And 
maybe, it is said, that this is something we are talking about, a 
procedure, but it is talking about life and it is talking about 
birthdays. It is talking about that life in that womb matters, and the 
potential from life until death is something that I believe God has 
given.
  When we understand that, let's take it out of the realm of choosing a 
choice. We are standing here today and I am standing here today to take 
up for the rights of that baby in the womb and making sure that 
birthdays come, that life happens. When you look at someone like Micah 
and you understand that many people would have wrote them off as 
unviable, God had a different choice, and that is, today, that young 
boy that was on Capitol Hill last week.
  But it doesn't take Micah for me. It just takes Jordan for me, my 25-
year-old who just texted me just a few minutes ago to say: Daddy, I 
love you. Over 25 years ago someone told me and my wife that she was 
not worth having. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to stand for those 
still in the womb waiting for life.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New 
York for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise for Kerri from New Jersey. This is her 
story.
  With the help of a fertility specialist, Kerri and her husband were 
thrilled to be expecting their first baby in January of 2016. All of 
Kerri's tests and scans were looking great until the 20-week 
ultrasound.
  Kerri recounts: Our ultrasound tech spent a lot of time looking at 
her heart, and, finally, the doctor from maternal fetal medicine came 
in.
  As she scanned, she told Kerri and her husband that there were some 
severe brain and heart abnormalities. The doctor also told them the 
chest cavity was small and that the lungs were not developing properly. 
A few days later, a geneticist told Kerri and her husband that the baby 
had three copies of every chromosome, a very rare condition. The doctor 
informed them that infants born with this condition very rarely survive 
more than a few days after delivery.
  According to Kerri: We both calmly made the decision to have an 
abortion. We did not want our little girl to suffer. We would much 
rather take on that suffering for her.
  On behalf of Kerri, New Jerseyans, and women everywhere, I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and vote ``no'' on H.R. 36.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to stand and support 
this rule that will allow for the passage of the Pain-Capable Unborn 
Child Protection Act, which is also known as Micah's Law. The 
underlying legislation will protect thousands of unborn babies from the 
excruciating pain of abortion.
  Twenty weeks post-fertilization is an incredible milestone in 
pregnancy for moms and their unborn babies. Children at this stage in 
development have fingers and toes, and they have well-developed 
neurological structures that can feel pain. In fact, babies at this age 
are hypersensitive, feeling pain more acutely than you and me.
  Preemies, children born at the beginning of the sixth month, just 
like Micah, can survive outside the womb. These babies are the future 
doctors, nurses, scientists, teachers, law enforcement officers in our 
country.
  H.R. 36 protects this next generation of America's children. Our 
country is unified in protecting life at 20 weeks. Six in ten Americans 
support the pain-capable legislation, and 20 States have passed similar 
legislation.
  Let's put an end to the abortion of these potential children. Let's 
support this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to 
speak for April and against this unconstitutional underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, her story is about one of the most complex and painful 
decisions a woman can face, but it would have been even more painful if 
this bill that we are debating, which is opposed by the American 
Medical Association, was the law at the time.
  Eighteen weeks into her pregnancy, she and her husband discovered 
that their baby had a birth defect, a lethal skeletal dysplasia, and 
was incompatible with life. The baby would never be able to breathe on 
its own. The baby would either die in utero or die immediately at 
birth. She was heartbroken. She went to other doctors for more tests. 
These tests took additional weeks. Tragically, the tests confirmed the 
diagnosis.

  At 21 weeks, April had an abortion. With this bill, the Federal 
Government would compel every woman like April against their will to 
carry to term a fetus that they knew would either be stillborn or would 
suffer and die at birth.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this underlying bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to heed 
the gavel.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 36, Micah's Law, which I 
proudly cosponsored. It is said that nations are

[[Page H7689]]

judged by how we care for our weakest members. There are no more 
vulnerable than a preborn child, whom, unfortunately, we fail to 
protect.
  The United States is one of only seven nations that allow elective 
abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, when science confirms that the 
babies feel pain. Accompanying us on this list are China and North 
Korea, nations with disturbing records of human rights violations.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not simply about a medical procedure. It is 
about life. Micah Pickering was born at 22 weeks. He is now a happy, 
healthy kindergartner. There is a lot of talk around here about life. 
This bill is about life. It is not about being lucky enough to have a 
birthday. It is about giving every child the opportunity to grow, and 
we are responsible for them. We should take that action seriously.
  I cosponsor the bill, I vote for the bill, and I urge everyone 
support Micah's Law.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise for my constituent, Allie, 
because we should not be playing politics in Congress with women's 
health choices and with the family decisionmaking rights of all 
Americans.
  Last spring, Allie and her husband were thrilled to learn that she 
was pregnant with their second child. A few months later, they found 
themselves heartbroken in a doctor's office in order to terminate a 
pregnancy that they had so badly wanted.
  Everything had gone smoothly until about 12 weeks, when a routine 
test returned with extremely abnormal results. Allie and her husband 
hoped for the best and waited several more weeks until they could 
perform an amnio.
  Sadly, the results of the amnio were unbearable. They found that the 
fetus had grown from a compromised cell line. There were multiple 
genetic anomalies that would result if the pregnancy continued to term 
in a child with extraordinarily grave and untreatable physical, 
cognitive, and developmental problems.
  The news was crushing and the decision was agonizing, but Allie knew 
the path forward for her family was clear. She would become part of the 
tiny group of women having abortions after 20 weeks, less than 2 
percent of all abortions.
  But Allie's story doesn't end with the decision that she and her 
husband made. Because she is a Federal employee, the Hyde amendment 
prevented her insurance from covering her abortion services. 
Fortunately, Maryland is a State where we respect women's choices, and 
Allie was able to go to a clinic and she paid $900 out of pocket.
  Allie recovered quickly from the procedure and she was able to get 
pregnant shortly thereafter. This summer, Allie and her husband were 
thrilled to welcome a beloved second child into their family.
  Mr. Speaker, Allie has one thing to say to lawmakers here today: We 
made the choices that are best for our family, and I trust all women to 
do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, an overwhelming majority of 
Americans--some 60 to 64 percent, according to pollsters--support legal 
protection for pain-capable unborn children at, at least, the 20th 
week, or about 5 months.
  Today we know that unborn babies not only die, but suffer 
excruciating pain during dismemberment abortion, a cruelty that rips 
arms and legs off of a helpless child. Even Supreme Court Justice 
Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the court in the Stenberg vs. 
Carhart decision said: ``The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human 
adult or child would. It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from 
limb.''
  He points out that, with a D&E dismemberment abortion, ``the fetus 
can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can 
survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off.''
  Mr. Speaker, even if pain wasn't present, dismembering a child is 
violence against children, and it is inhumane. But these babies at this 
age actually suffer.
  Dr. Robert White, a professor of neurology at Case Western Reserve 
University, has said: ``An unborn child at 20 weeks is fully capable of 
experiencing pain. Without question, abortion is a dreadfully painful 
experience for that child.''
  Dr. Colleen Malloy, a professor at the Division of Neonatology at 
Northwestern, 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 inference or ultrasound imagery because such 
premature patients are kicking, moving, and reacting and developing 
right before our eyes in the neonatal intensive care unit. ``
  Again, these children are there being assisted, and if you touch 
them, if you try to dismember them once they are born, they will feel 
the pain. In like manner, an unborn child at 20 weeks' gestation will 
feel the pain. She points out that she would never, ever commit such 
cruelty to a child.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation, H.R. 36.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mr. Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and for her 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, after what has happened in the last couple of days, this 
terrible tragedy in Las Vegas, this Congress should be spending every 
minute focusing on what we were sent here to do: taking action to enact 
commonsense safety measures to reduce gun violence.
  But what do we hear on that subject from the leadership on the 
Republican side?
  Nothing. But what we get is yet another attack on the individual 
rights of women in this country to make decisions about their own 
healthcare, about their bodies, about themselves.
  Those sorts of decisions should be made between a woman and her 
doctor. This has been confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United 
States. People in Washington, D.C., sitting in this Congress, should 
not be able to interfere in the private health decisions that women can 
only make for themselves.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Utah (Mrs. Love).

                              {time}  1300

  Mrs. LOVE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to send my love 
and prayers to the victims and the family members of those who were 
hurt in Nevada.
  I would also like to plead to the American people today to be good to 
one another. We have enough people out there outside of our country 
trying to hurt us. We have enough natural disasters trying to tear down 
our homes and tear up our lives that we don't have to do that to each 
other.
  I rise today as an American, as a wife, and mainly as a mother to 
address some of the double standards that we have in this country. As a 
member of the Select Panel on Infant Lives, I learned that Federal law 
increases criminal penalties for crimes involving pregnant women. These 
laws give protections to the mother and her unborn child--rightfully 
so.
  However, this begs the question: When does the unborn have a right to 
protection just like their mother?
  Obviously, this is an important issue.
  Why is abortion not considered murder and killing a pregnant woman a 
double homicide?
  Martin Luther King, Jr., said this about the civil rights movement: 
``The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives 
of his children for comfort and safety.'' How can the dream survive if 
we murder our children?
  Each human life should be protected under the rule of law. Each life 
that feels pain should be free from being tortured.
  I cannot believe that we are here on the floor of the House, the 
people's House, continuing to plead and advocate for life. I am asking 
that we support H.R. 36 and help provide these protections for our 
unborn.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, today I rise for Dr. 
Jennifer and her patients. This is their story.

[[Page H7690]]

  Dr. Jennifer's patients come from my home State of California. They 
were a married couple on their second pregnancy. They were so excited 
to grow their family. But they discovered, at 22 weeks, that the fetus 
was severely growth-restricted, had no fluid around it, had a cardiac 
anomaly, and would not survive the pregnancy. Although this was a 
wanted pregnancy, they chose to terminate the pregnancy at 23 weeks 
rather than prolong the suffering of the mother and her fetus.
  Dr. Jennifer wants lawmakers to know that abortion restrictions would 
have forced her patient to carry this pregnancy until the fetus died in 
the womb, despite the medical advice that their baby would not survive 
to term. H.R. 36 and policies like it deny families their 
constitutional right to a choice about how they want to move forward 
with medical decisions that impact their bodies and their families.
  On behalf of Dr. Jennifer and her patients, I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on H.R. 36. We must stop these bans.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, or Micah's Law, is of 
utmost importance. Not only does the bill recognize the common humanity 
and inherent rights that we share with the most vulnerable members of 
our society, it offers our Nation an opportunity to prevent 
excruciating pain for those same members, and it will stop a form of 
violence that has gone on for too long. This bill is a step forward in 
reversing a culture of violence and restoring a culture of life.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that passage of this 
legislation will save 2,750 children per year. That is 2,750 girls and 
boys who will have a chance to contribute to our society.
  If you want to facilitate a culture of life, vote for this bill. If 
you want to begin to prevent violence in our country, vote for this 
bill. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Schneider).
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise for Jessica. This is her 
story.
  Jessica's second pregnancy was difficult. At about 12 weeks, she 
discovered she was bleeding. After weeks of calls with midwives, visits 
to specialists, and numerous tests, it wasn't until 22 weeks, 5 days 
into her pregnancy when she was told the tragic news that her baby had 
a rare birth defect and would likely not survive through the two 
surgeries she would have needed. Jessica made the difficult, 
heartbreaking decision to end her pregnancy.
  Under this bill, there would be nowhere for Jessica to turn. Jessica 
wants lawmakers to know, in her own words: ``I am so incredibly 
thankful that my daughter never had to suffer. . . . I am still 
grieving and I think I always will be. Having an abortion was the most 
compassionate choice I had available to me. My daughter deserved 
compassion.''
  A decision like Jessica's should be between the woman and her doctor, 
no one else. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 36. We must 
stop the bans.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the rule and the underlying legislation.
  We come here today, of course, as Members of Congress, but as we look 
at what happened in our country the last several weeks, one of the 
things that has been lauded very much is first responders, those who 
are rushing to the scene to help people who have been affected, who are 
going through pain and suffering.
  I would like you to consider today's legislation and the rule, as we 
are first responders. We stand for life. We stand for the ability, as a 
people, and there is no other nation in the world like the American 
people who respond when other people are in trouble, when they are 
suffering, when they are in pain, when their lives are in danger. And 
yet we turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to what we are doing to these 
children. These are little boys and little girls waiting to be born.

  If we do not stand for them, who will stand for them?
  If we are not the first responders, who will be the first responders?
  If it is not us in the people's House who go beyond the hypocrisy of 
a political statement and go about the reason we are here--it is the 
people's House because we defend those people--let us be the first 
responders when it comes to pain and suffering. Let us pass this bill 
and stop this inhuman activity that we are doing.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, let's talk about pain here today.
  Let's talk about Leslie and her husband, who found out that they were 
pregnant and were thrilled. Unfortunately, the pregnancy did not go 
well. Tests revealed that Leslie's fetus' brain never divided into two 
separate hemispheres, giving her child no chance for survival. Let's 
talk about pain.
  By the time the test exposed this tragic news, Leslie was over 20 
weeks pregnant, but she lived in a State without an abortion ban. Now 
she lives in Wisconsin, where abortions after 20 weeks are illegal. Had 
she lived there during this time, she would have been forced to deliver 
a baby and be pregnant for 20 more weeks, compounding the emotional 
horror of the experience. Let's talk about pain.
  In Leslie's own words: ``I still mourn my daughter every day, but I 
cannot begin to understand how a position that would rather see me dead 
and neither of my sons ever born just to prolong a tragically doomed 
pregnancy can be called `pro-life.'''
  On behalf of Leslie, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 36. 
We must stop the bans and stop the pain.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I think we should talk about pain on the 
floor today because, when you talk to physicians and OB/GYNs, they will 
tell you that, if they are doing work, if they are doing an 
amniocentesis, then that baby feels pain, that baby responds, that 
child in the womb.
  So I would encourage my colleagues, talk to Dr. Roe, talk to some of 
the OB/GYNs who serve in this Chamber, because they fully understand, 
as we understand, that the gift of life is not something that comes 
through the law. That is a natural gift. That is a gift of God. And 
that child who is receiving that life, who is held in the womb, if they 
are poked or prodded or there is an uncomfortable situation, they 
experience pain. That is why this legislation is referred to as the 
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
  I encourage support of this legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that the House keeps the 
District of Columbia from spending its own funds for low-income women 
who want to end a pregnancy at even 1 week.
  But today I rise for Christy Zink, a District of Columbia resident 
who was a mother of one, soon-to-be mother of two. However, at 21 
weeks, an MRI detected a fetal anomaly regarding her unborn son's 
brain. A critical part of the brain of the fetus had simply not 
developed. She decided to end the pregnancy at almost 22 weeks.
  On behalf of Christy Zink, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
H.R. 36. We must stop the bans.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).
  Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 36, the 
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which I was among one of the 
first cosponsors. God bless Representative Trent Franks for his 
tireless leadership.
  This is a commonsense, pro-life bill that prohibits late-term 
elective abortions on unborn babies after 20 weeks postfertilization. 
At this tender age, they can feel the excruciating pain of abortion.
  America has always been a beacon for human rights. Yet, according to 
a 2014 report by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the U.S. is among just 
seven countries that permit elective abortion

[[Page H7691]]

past 20 weeks. These countries include China and North Korea.
  Our Nation suffers an egregious offense to be listed with North Korea 
and China, two oppressive regimes that show no respect for human life 
or human rights in allowing the killing of these precious babies as 
they endure these cruel abortions.
  This bill is important, as we speak for those who cannot speak for 
themselves. As an engaged and active member of the Congressional Pro-
Life Caucus, I fully support this bill, as I stand for life.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise for Rose from Michigan.
  In Rose's first pregnancy, which was planned and very wanted, severe 
brain abnormalities were detected in the 22nd week. She made the 
decision, she said ``I will take that risk,'' because the doctor said 
there was a 70 percent chance that the child would be able to function. 
But at 28 weeks, the doctor made an analysis that said a severe brain 
condition with a life expectancy under 4 years, with severe seizures 
and limited development.
  We are talking about suffering now. The baby would have problems 
swallowing, breathing, even smiling. The baby would never be able to 
communicate or control her body. And today we are talking about 
suffering.
  Rose made the choice between a short, painful life and peace. She 
chose the latter.
  Rose says: ``I believe we made the most compassionate and loving 
choice we could for our baby, but the grief was initially 
overwhelming.''
  On behalf of Rose, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 36. We 
must stop the bans.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think that it is important to acknowledge the pain of the cases 
that those on the other side of the aisle are mentioning. But I would 
note, Mr. Speaker, that there has been no mention, no discussion on the 
other side of the aisle about the pain that these babies feel, and that 
when you are in a situation like the ones that have been described, 
what is happening is those babies are being subjected to really, 
oftentimes, a horrific procedure. The question is, because a baby is 
found to have some chromosomal anomaly, to have some very severe 
handicap, whether or not they deserve to be subjected to the pain we 
now know they feel.

                              {time}  1315

  In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have seen work done by Northwestern 
University that demonstrates that the pain that these young preemies 
feel may, in fact, be even worse than the pain that older babies feel, 
because the pain inhibitors develop later in life than the pain 
receptors do.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not 
to ignore the challenges and the issues involved here with respect to 
the pain that these babies feel. I would also note, Mr. Speaker, that 
the CBO, in a very unusual step, has assessed that this bill itself 
would save 2,750 lives annually. That is something that the CBO doesn't 
often do, but it is very important for us to recognize.
  I don't think we can have a discussion about this bill, about these 
issues, without acknowledging the pain that these babies feel, and I 
would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to focus on 
that as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what my colleague is saying, but there is 
no scientific evidence or proof that an unborn fetus feels the pain. 
That is one of the reasons we are not discussing it over here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding. For over 40 years, the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe 
v. Wade, has stood as a bulwark protection for women's reproductive 
rights and healthcare rights.
  Now, in 2017, House Republicans are leading yet another 
unconstitutional, dangerous, and outright assault on women's health and 
privacy. This extreme bill not only takes aim at Roe v. Wade by 
lowering the ban on abortion to 20 weeks, it goes even further by 
promising to throw doctors in jail. This is a cynical, repugnant effort 
by Republicans to pander to a far-right base while jeopardizing women's 
health--all for a political payoff.
  At the same time this House is considering a measure restricting a 
woman's right to choose, we have not found time to assist 3.5 million 
American citizens who are suffering and dying in Puerto Rico. You call 
that pro-life? I urge Republicans: listen to the majority of Americans 
who support a woman's right to privacy and a safe abortion. Reject this 
shameful bill.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that the scientific evidence is 
extensive in terms of the pain that these unborn babies feel. In 
particular, the standard of care, Mr. Speaker, for babies who are born 
prematurely, as well as for babies who are patients in vitro, is to 
provide anesthesia. And that standard of care is based upon evidence 
that these babies have pain receptors, that these babies react to pain, 
and that they feel pain.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the notion that there is no scientific evidence 
for this is flat wrong. I don't think we can ignore the example of 
babies like Micah, babies who are born, babies who grow up to lead very 
full and healthy lives and who deserve a chance.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that as individuals and as Representatives, 
elected Representatives, it is our obligation, in fact, to do 
everything we can to protect these babies, and that is what this bill 
is about.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ruiz), a doctor.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, like every physician, I took an oath to do no 
harm and make every decision in the best interest of my patients in the 
emergency department.
  That oath drives every choice a doctor makes, whether it is 
prescribing medications, treating chronic illnesses, and even choosing 
how best to triage and treat a trauma patient. H.R. 36 would stand in 
the way of a doctor's ability to best care for their patients. This 
bill would force doctors to ignore the symptoms that they have learned 
through years of training and practice that show a patient's condition 
could become a more serious medical condition.
  Can you imagine going into your doctor's office as a pregnant woman 
and being told your twins would not live and that giving birth could 
rupture your uterus, causing severe bleeding? That is what happened to 
Phil and his wife from Missouri. They learned at week 21 that she was 
at risk of a ruptured uterus and that the twins would die because of 
twin-twin transfusion syndrome.
  Phil said: ``Decisions about abortion need to be made with families 
and the best medical information available.'' I couldn't agree more. A 
physician's sole focus should be the health of their patient, not the 
consequences of an arbitrary law that has no basis in medical evidence, 
and no basis that this bill is even necessary or that it will improve 
health outcomes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, that is why, as a physician and a father, I 
oppose this legislation. We need less bureaucratic obstacles that get 
in the way of a doctor caring for their patients. We cannot interfere 
with a provider's ability to deliver the best care for their patients.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, which deals with children as 
well. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of 
young people, children, who are Americans in every way except on paper.

[[Page H7692]]

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Soto), to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, President Barack Obama, under his executive 
powers, established the DACA program which temporarily protected 
immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children from potential 
deportation.
  Our Nation made a promise to DREAMers that by coming out of the 
shadows, following the rules and laws of our great land, they would not 
be deported to a foreign country that they never knew or barely 
remembered.
  DREAMers came to the United States under no volition of their own as 
young children, making this country the only home most have ever known. 
DREAMers have jobs, pay taxes, and contribute to the prosperity of our 
Nation's economy. Since its implementation, the DACA program has added 
over 50,000 jobs to our economy. Ninety-three percent of DREAMers are 
currently employed.
  Over the next decade, DACA beneficiaries are projected to contribute 
$460 billion to our Nation's GDP; $24.6 billion in Medicare and Social 
Security; and an estimated $2.5 billion annually for State and Federal 
contributions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York. 
However, on September 5, President Trump announced he would end DACA 
and look to Congress to develop a legislative solution for DACA 
recipients.
  Well, Congress has a solution. It is H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. We 
have heard about it from sea to shining sea. The Dream Act would allow 
DREAMers to earn lawful permanent residence with a pathway to 
citizenship. It would also give them the opportunity to continue 
contributing to their communities by encouraging them to pursue higher 
education, work for at least 3 years, or serve in our United States 
military.
  To qualify under the Dream Act, a person must graduate from high 
school, pass a background check, demonstrate proficiency in the English 
language, and not have a felony or any other serious crime that could 
pose a threat to our country. With the DACA set to expire, now is the 
time for Congress to act.
  We must bring the Dream Act to the floor for a vote because Congress 
has been silent for too long. DREAMers are doing their jobs. What we 
ask is that Congress does theirs. It is time for Congress to do its job 
and pass the Dream Act without delay.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I believe Americans are 
compassionate people. I also believe Americans are angered by 
injustice, and I know Americans are eager to protect the defenseless.
  In a past hearing before the Judiciary Committee on this bill, Dr. 
Maureen Condic said in her testimony: ``Imposing pain on any pain-
capable living creature is cruelty. And ignoring the pain experienced 
by another human individual for any reason is barbaric.''
  H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, gives us a 
chance to choose compassion by preventing abortions from taking place 
if the child is 20 weeks or older. Science proves that not only can 
these children feel pain, but since their pain inhibitors are 
undeveloped, they feel pain even more intensely than we can. In Dr. 
Condic's words: ``We simply have to decide whether we will choose to 
ignore the pain of the fetus or not.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am choosing not to ignore their pain. I strongly urge 
my colleagues to support this compassionate bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority keeps trying to take the women's personal 
decision and put it in someone else's hands. Over the years, they have 
tried to allow bosses to make the healthcare decisions for their 
employees. They pushed a bill that would allow women to die if an 
emergency room employee coming to her aid had a ``conscientious 
objection'' to performing an abortion that would save her life.
  Today, they are trying to pass an abortion ban that would put up even 
more obstacles and prevent women from receiving safe and legal 
abortion, which is protected by the Constitution.
  The bill before us today strikes at the heart of Roe v. Wade. 
Opponents of the Supreme Court decision have been clear and outspoken 
that that is precisely their goal. The ban on abortions after 20 weeks 
does not contain reasonable exceptions for victims of rape and incest. 
The legislation flies in the face of what the American people--women 
and men--want us to be doing.
  The majority must have quickly forgotten the national Women's March 
that took place in January. Millions of persons across the country and 
around the globe marched in the largest day of protest in our Nation's 
history. More than half a million people took to the streets right here 
in the Nation's Capital. They sent a message to the majority to respect 
their rights, including their right to choose.
  If people sometimes ask women why we are still marching and calling 
and writing about the four decades after the Supreme Court's Roe v. 
Wade decision, which it has since upheld, it is because of bills like 
this. We constantly have to refight the battles our mothers and 
grandmothers won for us. This legislation, again, is proof of that.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question to the 
rule and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for his work 
on this issue and for introducing this important bill. It is undeniable 
that we have a much better understanding today of life inside the womb 
than we did at the time of the passage of Roe v. Wade.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle express a commitment to 
science in all cases except where it matters most, in those cases that 
involve the preservation of human life. They don't want to talk about 
babies. They don't want to talk about the horrific procedures that we 
are dealing with today, and we have to. It is our obligation to.
  Mr. Speaker, our country has banned partial-birth abortion in a 
decision that was upheld by the Supreme Court, and I would just urge my 
colleagues to look at the decision in that opinion, Gonzales v. 
Carhart, the decision written by Justice Kennedy: talking in specific, 
quoting a nurse, talking about the reaction of a 26-week-old baby who 
was a victim of partial-birth abortion, what their physical reaction 
is, the mother of little babies reading that, and the description of 
what happens to a baby when they are killed--watching their hands 
expand and then contract, as any mother of a newborn infant has watched 
many times.
  It is truly horrific, and I think, as a society, Mr. Speaker, we have 
to be willing to face the exact nature of what it is we are talking 
about. We have an obligation as elected Representatives, Mr. Speaker, 
to protect the lives of these unborn babies. This legislation would do 
that.
  We have a moral obligation, and it is our job. It is in the interest 
of the States to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that we do everything possible 
to protect life.
  In this case, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a bill that would 
protect babies at moments when we know they can feel pain in the womb. 
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of both the rule and of 
H.R. 36 so that we can continue to protect and save lives.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 548 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to

[[Page H7693]]

     clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into 
     the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
     for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3440) to authorize the 
     cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain 
     individuals who are long-term United States residents and who 
     entered the United States as children and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day 
     the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3440.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 184, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 546]

                               YEAS--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--184

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)

[[Page H7694]]


     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bridenstine
     Crowley
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Garrett
     Gutierrez
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kihuen
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Speier
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus

                              {time}  1353

  Messrs. TED LIEU of California, O'HALLERAN, Ms. CLARKE of New York, 
Messrs. LARSON of Connecticut, CARSON of Indiana, CARBAJAL, TAKANO, 
GARAMENDI, and RUSH changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 546.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 187, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 547]

                               YEAS--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--187

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bridenstine
     Crowley
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kihuen
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Marchant
     Rosen
     Smucker
     Titus


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1359

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SMUCKER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 547.

                          ____________________