[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.
____________________