[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H494-H503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4712, BORN-ALIVE ABORTION SURVIVORS 
 PROTECTION ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM 
               JANUARY 22, 2018, THROUGH JANUARY 26, 2018

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 694 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 694

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4712) to 
     amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care 
     practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of 
     care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or 
     attempted abortion. 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.
       Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     January 22, 2018, through January 26, 2018--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

  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 gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), 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.

                              {time}  1230


                             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 yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 694, which 
provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 4712, the Born-Alive 
Abortion Survivors Protection Act. This important bill ensures medical 
care and legal protection for abortion survivors, protects their 
mothers from prosecution, and holds abortion providers accountable.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not duplicative as some have suggested. It 
simply augments current law: the Born-Alive Infants Act and the Partial 
Birth Abortion Ban Act, which the House passed in 2002 and 2003, 
respectively, with very strong bipartisan support.
  Current law includes, in the Federal definition of a person, infants 
who are born alive no matter the method of birth or the stage of their 
development. Current law, Mr. Speaker, also provides criminal penalties 
for physicians who provide partial-birth abortions.
  What current law does not provide, however, is enforceable protection 
for those children who are born alive after a failed abortion attempt 
and denied care, nor does it provide criminal penalties, Mr. Speaker, 
for those who perform or knowingly ignore these actions.
  Mr. Speaker, there are horrific stories of children born alive during 
abortions and are either gruesomely left for dead or deliberately 
killed once born. Even more, the abortion industry is fully aware of 
the risk of a child being born alive during an abortion, especially if 
the abortion occurs once the child is gestationally 18 to 20 weeks old 
or more, the age at which we know a child is able to survive if given 
the proper neonatal care.
  Take the story, Mr. Speaker, of Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor 
who testified before the House Judiciary Committee in 2015. She said: 
``Instead of dying, after 18 hours of being burned in my mother's womb, 
I was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in Los Angeles on April 6, 
1977. My medical records state: `Born alive during saline abortion' at 
6 a.m.
  ``Thankfully, the abortionist was not at work yet. Had he been there, 
he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation, or leaving 
me there to die. Instead, a nurse called an ambulance, and I was rushed 
to a hospital. Doctors did not expect me to live.
  ``I did. I was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy, which was caused 
by a lack of oxygen to my brain while I was surviving the abortion. I 
was never supposed to hold my head up or walk. I do.''
  She concluded: ``If abortion is about women's rights, then what were 
mine?''
  Some abortion providers, Mr. Speaker, are unwilling to respect the 
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, such as Priscilla Smith, who 
testified at a House Judiciary Committee hearing in 2015, saying that 
she didn't believe it would be a violation of the previous Born-Alive 
Infants Protection Act if a baby were killed outside the womb as long 
as the baby wasn't ``viable.''
  Ms. Smith went on to assert some fetuses are never viable. She made 
these claims notwithstanding the fact, Mr. Speaker, that viability is 
not a factor, even under existing law, in determining whether an infant 
deserves protection under the law. The law protects infants born alive 
at any stage of development; and, therefore these abortion survivors 
are entitled to the same degree of care that would be received by any 
other babies of their age.
  The bill we are debating today, Mr. Speaker, would impose enforceable 
criminal penalties for clinics that do not treat survivors with proper 
medical care. There is, sadly, evidence that clinics fail to provide 
this care.
  Deborah Edge, a former abortion clinic employee, wrote an op-ed about 
her experience. She said: ``I was the doctor's right-hand person in the 
operating room, and just like those employees of Dr. Gosnell''--who we 
know was

[[Page H495]]

one of the most horrific abortionists to date, guilty of first degree 
murder in the cases of at least three babies--``I saw the abortionist 
puncture the soft spot in the baby's head or snip its neck if it was 
delivered alive.''
  The abortion providers, Mr. Speaker, who neglect to provide 
appropriate professional care to these babies, or worse, who kill them 
once they are born, must be held accountable.
  Finally, I believe it is very important to note, to counter some of 
the things you will hear from the other side of the aisle, that this 
bill provides crucial protections for women. This bill protects women 
who seek abortions by prohibiting them from being prosecuted under the 
law.
  H.R. 4712 also empowers women. It allows them to sue abortionists who 
don't provide protection for aborted babies who are born alive. This is 
very important, Mr. Speaker. Take the case of a woman named Angela who 
went to a clinic in Orlando, Florida, when she was 23 weeks pregnant.
  Angela received pills to begin contractions to induce an abortion. 
After an hour of labor, Mr. Speaker, Angela delivered her baby, alive, 
into a toilet. Angela had her friend call 911 to request help to save 
her baby, but when the paramedics arrived on the scene, clinic staff 
reportedly turned them away. The fire department's incident report said 
they had no contact with the patient.
  After the death of her son, Rowan, Angela wrote the following: ``The 
very moment I saw my son was alive, nothing else in the whole world 
mattered but Rowan's safety . . . Only one thing mattered to me: 
getting Rowan help. I begged repeatedly.''
  Tragically, the abortion clinic not only refused but also, 
apparently, sabotaged Angela's call for help.
  The bill that we are debating today, Mr. Speaker, would give women 
like Angela the ability to sue abortionists who do not comply with the 
law's requirements to give medical attention to children born alive 
like baby Rowan.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule to allow 
consideration of H.R. 4712, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today we will consider the 61st closed 
rule of the Congress, part of a disturbing and familiar pattern. 
Republicans are running this House with no regular order, no hearings 
on legislation, and one closed rule after another. Speaker Ryan and 
House Republicans recently set a record as presiding over the most 
closed session of Congress in history, and now they are adding to it.
  With no transparency and their continued effort to silence any debate 
or dissent, this House Chamber feels more like the Russian house rather 
than the people's House. Now, I know Donald Trump is enthralled with 
authoritarian rulers and authoritarian rule, but that doesn't mean you 
guys have to follow suit.
  Today's rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 4712, yet another 
partisan and extreme Republican bill that is completely unnecessary and 
aimed solely at pleasing the majority's rightwing base. The simple 
truth is that this bill is filled with inflammatory language 
intentionally designed to politicize women's access to healthcare. It 
is clearly about nothing more than advancing an agenda to take away 
access to safe and legal abortion.
  With this bill, House Republicans are meddling in the decisions that 
should be left up to doctors and patients. That is not our job. What we 
are doing today is not about serious legislating. If it were, the 
majority would have gone through regular order. This bill is nothing 
more than a very cynical effort to give Republican Members of Congress 
something to point to when they join the anti-choice march in 
Washington this week. Republicans are recklessly playing politics with 
women's health, and they should be ashamed.
  My Republican colleagues claim that this bill is just a reinstatement 
of the current born-alive law. First, if that were true, then this bill 
would be redundant and unnecessary; and, second, Democrats would 
support it. When the original law came to the House floor in 2002, it 
was passed by a voice vote. We all agreed. But this bill is not a 
reinstatement.
  This bill takes the current, functional law and adds a radical 
inclusion of criminal penalties for doctors if they violate the 
unreasonable requirements of this legislation.
  Under current law, when a child is born alive, including during an 
abortion procedure, the healthcare provider is required to care for 
this newborn and apply a standard level of care given to any and every 
child. However, this bill takes the law a step further and requires 
that the doctor immediately transport this child to a hospital, without 
exception, whether it is safe for the child or not, or face criminal 
punishment--up to 5 years in jail.
  This bill could create a chilling effect and limit access to safe, 
legal abortion for women since physicians may fear prosecution. 
Patients need and deserve access to compassionate and appropriate 
medical care. This bill is, quite frankly, unconscionable.
  Mr. Speaker, there are times when immediately transporting a newborn 
to a hospital that may be miles or even hours away may result in grave 
harm to that infant. Such decisions must be left to the professional 
judgment of doctors and clinicians.
  Doctors and clinicians oppose this law because it prevents them from 
giving the best care to their patients. The American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists strongly oppose this legislation, 
calling it a ``gross interference in the practice of medicine.''
  Current law is working and should not be radically changed for a 
partisan talking point. Right now there are a number of truly critical 
issues that we ought to be considering on this floor, not a sound bite 
for an anti-choice rally coming up in the next couple of days.
  A clear majority of Americans, I should point out to my colleagues, 
seven out of ten, say they believe a woman should have the right to a 
safe, legal abortion according to a Quinnipiac University poll. By 
stark contrast, fewer than three in ten Americans--that is 29 percent--
approve of the job Republicans are doing in Congress. Maybe the 
majority ought to get the hint. People don't like what you are doing. 
This should be a wake-up call to Republicans to end their partisan 
crusades and start doing their jobs. It is time to focus on the real 
pressing issues we face.
  The Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, which nearly 2 million 
kids and their families rely on, has been in limbo for months as States 
are beginning to run out of money. Now Republicans are pushing a 
continuing resolution that fails to permanently extend CHIP. 
Permanently extending CHIP would not only give these kids and their 
families the certainty they need when it comes to their healthcare, but 
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that it would also 
save $6 billion. I thought the majority were the party of fiscal 
responsibility. Do the right thing and save $6 billion. But Republicans 
would rather kick the can down the road once again.
  The authorizations for Community Health Center funds and the 
Maternal, Infant, and Childhood Home Visitation programs will remain 
expired. That is not even included in this partisan CR that we are 
going to see a little bit later today.
  Each and every day, 122 DREAMers are losing their protected status 
and ability to work in this country, and my Republican friends don't 
seem at all bothered by that.
  People who are first responders, saving lives, people who serve in 
our military and people who work in our companies who are such great 
members of our community are treated like this in such a rotten way, 
and yet more inaction.
  The administration just stripped 200,000 Salvadorans legally residing 
in the United States of their protected status, people who are obeying 
our laws and who are working here legally.

                              {time}  1245

  They did this while admonishing Congress to provide these same people 
with an enduring lawful immigration status; and yet, we have a Congress 
that is so dysfunctional, they can't even agree on what to have for 
lunch,

[[Page H496]]

never mind move anything forward that is positive with regard to 
protecting these important members of our community.
  The debt limit needs to be raised to ensure the U.S. is able to pay 
its bills. Communities are urgently in need of resources to fight the 
opioid epidemic that is killing 91 Americans a day.
  They are tired of your press releases. They want the funding to be 
able to respond to the crisis in their communities; yet, nothing in 
this CR, no urgency here in Congress.
  More needs to be done to help repair damage left by devastating 
wildfires and hurricanes that have ravaged this country. I just came 
back from a trip to Puerto Rico. The place is still in great disrepair, 
and our initial response to that hurricane was disgraceful. We have a 
special obligation to these people, our fellow citizens, to better 
respond; yet, there is no urgency here.
  Most importantly, where is the budget agreement that sets the caps 
for fiscal year 2018? House and Senate appropriators can't even begin 
negotiations on an omnibus funding bill until they know the top-line 
numbers.
  That means that this will not be the last short-term continuing 
resolution that we see before this House. Until there is an agreement 
on the budget caps, we will continue to see the Republican majority 
keep kicking the can down the road. We will see CR No. 5 in mid-
February and maybe CR No. 6 shortly thereafter.
  When will the Republicans finally stop negotiating with themselves 
and instead reach out to Democrats and work in a bipartisan way and 
actually get the job done that we were sent here to do by our 
constituents?
  We are just hours away from another Republican shutdown, and instead 
of working on a bipartisan agreement, we are here discussing this 
inflammatory bill that will impose criminal penalties on doctors and 
allow Congress to intrude on medical care decisions.
  When are we going to put the radical rhetoric aside and do our jobs 
and tackle the real issues that the Americans sent us here to tackle?
  Here is kind of the icing on the cake. This government shutdown is 
looming. We are going to run out of money on Friday. All hell is going 
to break loose if we can't come to some sort of agreement. You would 
think we would be working together to get this done as quickly as 
possible.
  But then we are told we are going to consider the continuing 
resolution rule after this and then we are going to debate it, but we 
are not going to vote on it until later night, after 7, maybe even 
later.
  Why, people might ask, are we delaying action on a bill that decides 
whether we keep the government open?
  Oh, we just found out President Trump is doing a political rally with 
Republican Members of Congress in Pennsylvania.
  So the political rally is more important than the well-being of the 
American people?
  What are you guys thinking?
  Shame on you. This is a moment of urgency and instead of doing 
political sound bite legislation and instead of doing political rallies 
in Pennsylvania for an election that doesn't happen until March, 
Members of Congress ought to be here, working to keep the government 
running, to come to some sort of accommodation on the DREAMers, to make 
sure community health centers are funded, to make sure our veterans get 
the funding and the healthcare they need.
  What you are doing is atrocious. If the American people could sue you 
for political malpractice, you would be in deep trouble.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, to oppose this bill that 
would severely undermine women's access to essential services like 
abortion, and I urge my colleagues to cancel the political rally and 
get back to work.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair and not engage in personalities toward the President.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle, Mr. McGovern. We have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to spend a 
number of hours together up in the Rules Committee. It is always great 
to manage debates with Mr. McGovern on the other side of the aisle 
because you are left with, number one, no doubt about where he stands. 
But number two, a target-rich environment as well, Mr. Speaker.
  I would just say a couple of things. First of all, casting aspersions 
on this bill when my colleagues say this bill is nothing more than a 
political stunt or a political sound bite or a partisan talking point, 
I can't imagine, Mr. Speaker, that they really believe that describing 
legislation--they may disagree with the legislation--but for us to have 
to be on the floor of this body talking about babies who are born alive 
and who are killed at the hands of abortionists is far more than a 
political sound bite.
  I think Mr. McGovern, my colleague, was saying that we ought to be 
ashamed of ourselves. I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that is rhetoric 
that we don't need and rhetoric that is absolutely inaccurate in terms 
of describing the important efforts that we have underway here.

  I also would hope, Mr. Speaker, that our colleagues in the other 
body, in particular, the Democrats in the other body--Mr. Schumer and 
the others over there--were watching Mr. McGovern just now. If the 
issue really is, Let's get to work and let's get a deal done, that deal 
is in their hands.
  Mr. McGovern well knows that you have got to get 60 votes in the 
United States Senate to get a deal. We are in the position today where, 
of the long list of items Mr. McGovern mentioned, I would say he failed 
to mention the single most important obligation we have, which is to 
ensure that we get resources to our military.
  The reality of the situation we are facing today, at a moment when 
our Nation faces grave threats, at a moment where we are having 
servicemen and -women killed in training accidents--more killed in 
training accidents in the last year than were killed in combat in the 
last year--we in this body have failed to do our duty.
  The reality of this, for people to understand, is that the Democrats 
in the United States Senate are holding funding for defense hostage 
because they want amnesty for illegal immigrants. That, Mr. Speaker, is 
something that I think is absolutely indefensible.
  So I hope that Mr. McGovern's colleagues in the Senate were watching 
him, were listening to the concern he has about the sense of urgency 
with moving forward.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we could have a deal today, if the Democrats 
would stop holding spending hostage, stop holding the resources our 
military needs hostage in order to grant amnesty for illegal 
immigrants.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
(Mrs. Blackburn), my friend and colleague and the sponsor of this bill.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you it is an honor to come 
to the floor and talk about one of these protected rights: life.
  When we talk about our founding documents and life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness, it is life that we are protecting.
  I find it unfortunate that we have some who would say this is a 
radical talking point. I would offer that the right to life is a 
fundamental right, not a talking point.
  Now, what brings us to this point in time?
  We all remember the stories of Kermit Gosnell, the abortionist, the 
house of horrors, and what happened there, where individuals--moms--
lost their lives, where one of the workers in that clinic estimated 
that there had been as many as 100 babies through the years that had 
survived an abortion and had been killed.
  What we are seeking to do is expand these protections. Today, what we 
are doing with H.R. 4712 is to build on that legislation from 2002. 
This body had passed that legislation to protect infants that were born 
alive and had survived abortions.
  This bill before us today is going to do four very important things.
  First, it requires appropriate care be given to any child who is born 
alive following a failed abortion. It requires any health providers 
present to administer the same life-preserving care that would be given 
to babies born under any other circumstances and to ensure

[[Page H497]]

that the child is transported immediately to a hospital.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Second, the bill establishes criminal penalties that 
providers will face if they violate providing that care.
  Third, it establishes a civil right of action to enforce the law.
  Finally, the bill provides crucial protections that will prevent 
mothers of these babies from being subject to criminal prosecution and 
penalties.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the right steps to protect the most vulnerable 
among us. I encourage support for the bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from Wyoming that I will 
point out a little statistic that she might be interested in. That is, 
I think never in history has the government been shut down when the 
same party controls the House, the Senate, and the White House, like 
the Republicans do right now. The Republicans have a 23-seat majority, 
I think, in the House right now. You control the agenda.
  If the gentlewoman or her leadership were interested in working with 
Democrats, here is a little advice: maybe you ought to have asked us to 
the table. Maybe you should consult with us. Maybe you should ask us 
what we think is important. Maybe you ought to understand that if you 
want to get something done that is bipartisan, you have to act in a 
bipartisan way.
  The reason why I am anxious to get this vote on the CR is because I 
think the CR that has been proposed is wholly inadequate. It is not in 
the best interest of our country.
  But I want us to continue to negotiate it. Maybe the Republicans will 
come back to the table and negotiate. That is why I feel so strongly 
that my Republican friends ought not be going to political rallies in 
Pennsylvania today with the President and they ought to be staying here 
to do the work to make sure we get a bipartisan agreement to keep the 
government open.
  I get it. You are losing seats all around the place. The popularity 
of the Republican Party has never been lower. You are all panicked. But 
the election isn't until March. Donald Trump can take all of you on his 
luxurious plane to Pennsylvania at another time. But today, we ought to 
be focused on the people's business. Next week, we are supposed to be 
off. So you have all the time in the world next week to be able to go 
with Donald Trump on a political excursion.
  When I think about what is at stake and we are delaying votes on a 
continuing resolution and on further negotiations because people are 
more interested in the political rally in Pennsylvania, this takes my 
breath away.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to address their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we are back to the House floor today to pass another 
bill, the real intent of which is to harm women and limit their 
constitutionally protected healthcare they can receive. I need to 
repeat that because most people I find do not understand that the 
Constitution of the United States, which we revere, protects a woman's 
right to choose.
  To add insult to injury, this intrusive legislation is totally 
unnecessary. Killing an infant, or anybody else, has always been 
against the law.
  To reiterate the point, a bipartisan law was passed in 2002 to 
reinforce that medical care should be given to any infant born alive. 
To illustrate how unnecessary this bill is, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who is 
the only example we have in America, is going to spend the rest of his 
life in prison without any possibility of parole for three first-degree 
murder convictions.
  But H.R. 4712 goes much further than the current law. It legislates 
medical standards of care and threatens the providers with civil and 
criminal penalties.
  The effects of this are best described by an OB/GYN from my district:
  ``I have been a practicing OB/GYN for more than 35 years, and it is 
my life's calling to care for women across their lifespan. Throughout 
my career, I have cared for patients during their highest highs and 
lowest lows, from healthy pregnancies to devastating fetal anomalies, 
to cancer diagnoses. I take my role as their trusted physician very 
seriously, and take pride in providing compassionate and ethical care 
to each and every patient.
  ``H.R. 4712 would take that ability away from me, inserting 
politicians into the patient-physician relationship and the profoundly 
personal healthcare decisions of my patients.
  ``Recently, I had a patient with severe HELLP syndrome, a life-
threatening blood pressure condition during pregnancy for which the 
only treatment is to deliver. This meant induction of her previable 
fetus to save her life.

                              {time}  1300

  ``As her condition deteriorated, and after consulting her family, 
spiritual leader, and several specialists, she decided to deliver''--
she should be able to consult whomever she pleases--``knowing that her 
extremely preterm infant would not survive. If enacted, H.R. 4712 would 
take away this family's choice of providing comfort care for their 
baby, put my patient's life at risk, and threaten me with criminal and 
civil penalties for providing appropriate and empathetic care to my 
patients.''
  H.R. 4712 is just the next bill in a long line of votes that we have 
had here that would hurt women.
  But Congress is just part of the current crusade against women. This 
administration has done more than its share to ensure that 2017 saw an 
unprecedented amount of attacks against women and our ability to access 
healthcare.
  Just this morning--America, please don't lose the irony in this. Just 
this morning, the administration announced a rule to allow providers, 
hospitals, nurses, and others to refuse patients needed healthcare 
based solely on the religious or moral beliefs of the provider.
  Is it just me who thinks that is in direct contradiction to this bill 
they are trying to push off on us now? On the one hand, they are saying 
everything has to be treated, and, on the other hand, they are saying 
you don't have to treat anybody if your personal or moral convictions 
prevent you from doing so. That is really dangerous, believe me. This 
is an unconscionable effort to blatantly ignore the needs and the best 
interests of the patients.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. This silly rule will put individuals' lives and health 
in danger and will result in deaths, based on an undefined moral 
objection. It doesn't even have to be explained that they have some 
idea that they would not be able to treat that person who may be 
bleeding to death before them.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to close again with the words from the OB/GYN 
from my district:
  ``The purpose of this legislation is to scare and intimidate 
physicians and punish them for providing abortion care, but the true 
impact will be on the women and families who will be denied the highest 
quality medical treatment they deserve.
  ``H.R. 4712 is a dangerous bill. I urge you to protect my patients' 
access to care and reject this gross interference in the patient-
physician relationship.''
  Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, the whole idea of this bill is a 
political issue. But the idea of what the administration did this 
morning, to completely negate this bill that we are debating right now, 
is irony that is just too delicious to miss.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the strongest, most honorable and admirable 
defenders of life in this body, my friend.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, doctors, today, routinely diagnose and treat a myriad of 
illnesses and diseases suffered by societies' littlest patients--unborn 
babies

[[Page H498]]

and newborns--significantly enhancing both the children's health and 
longevity.
  Abortionists, on the other hand, take a different approach. They 
dismember and chemically kill unborn children for profit. For decades, 
babies have survived later term abortions. As far back as 37 years ago, 
a Philadelphia Inquirer story called baby survival ``the dreaded 
complication.''
  Dr. Willard Cates of the Center for Disease Control said live births 
``are little known because organized medicine, from fear of public 
clamor and legal action, treats them more as an embarrassment to be 
hushed up than a problem to be solved. It is like turning yourself in 
to the IRS for an audit. What is there to gain? The tendency is not to 
report because there are only negative incentives.''
  Of course, the tendency is not to report.
  When an undercover investigator asked another abortion provider from 
Planned Parenthood about the procedure for checking for signs of life 
in a baby born after an attempted abortion, the abortionist responded 
by saying: ``I mean, the key is, you need to pay attention to who is in 
the room. . . . `'
  Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell had a lot of people in the 
room, but nobody was reporting, as he killed and snipped the spinal 
cords of hundreds of born babies to ensure that they didn't survive.
  All is not well in the abortion clinics either, in terms of their own 
personnel. The National Public Radio, NPR, did an incisive story 
featuring former Planned Parenthood Director Abby Huffman, who is now 
Johnson, who is now pro-life, and her outreach to clinical workers 
encouraging them to quit their jobs inside the abortion clinics.
  Heard on ``All Things Considered,'' Annette Lancaster, a former 
manager of Planned Parenthood in North Carolina, said her abortion work 
made her feel ``dark and morbid.'' Annette said she was troubled by the 
way she and other workers referred to fetal remains. She said: ``I just 
now started being able to use my deep freezer in my home by going 
through therapy, because we used to call the freezer the `nursery.''' 
That is to say for the dead babies.
  The National Abortion Federation, in their textbook for abortionists, 
says:
  ``Providers should consider the possibility of a live-born fetus, 
particularly if fetal death is not induced prior to the procedure and 
the gestational age is 18 to 20 weeks or more.''
  ``Besides the emotional and ethical difficulties for patients, their 
partners, and staff, a delivery with signs of life may have legal 
implications.''
  The problem with existing law, Mr. Speaker, is enforcement--the lack 
of legal implications.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Marsha Blackburn's bill, the Born-Alive 
Abortion Survivors Protection Act, requires, under penalty of law, that 
appropriate healthcare to be given to any child who survives an 
attempted abortion, not looking the other way, as has been done for 
decades--Gosnell probably being the most egregious example.
  The law prescribes that:
  ``Any healthcare practitioner present at the time the child is born 
shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and 
diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably 
diligent and conscientious healthcare practitioner would render to any 
other child born alive at the same gestational age; following the 
exercise of skill, care, and diligence . . . ensure that the child born 
alive is immediately transported to a hospital.''
  The bill also establishes strong criminal penalties for practitioners 
who violate this requirement; establishes a civil right of action for 
the mother of the child, to enforce the law; and the mother of the 
child born alive may not be prosecuted under this law.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are, again, at a very urgent moment here for our 
country. We have a lot to do, and we ought to be working in a 
bipartisan way to keep the government open. That ought to be 
everybody's priority. Quite frankly, we ought to be focused on that 
more than on a bill that is a sound bite that is going nowhere.
  In fact, this bill was so important to my Republican friends that it 
never had a hearing or it never went through a markup. It just 
miraculously appeared at the last minute in advance of this anti-choice 
rally coming up.
  But with all that is going on right now, I mean, with the threat of a 
shutdown, I am looking at Donald Trump's tweet:
  ``Will be going to Pennsylvania today in order to give my total 
support to Rick Saccone, running for Congress in a special election 
(March 13). Rick is a great guy.''
  That is where the President's head is today. And he is taking a bunch 
of Republicans with him. Rather than negotiating a bipartisan deal that 
will help keep the government running, that will help the DREAMers, 
that will help our kids, that will help community health centers, that 
will help our hospitals, and that will help our veterans, the focus is 
on a political rally in Pennsylvania. This is unbelievable. Cancel the 
rally--you have until March 13--and, instead, focus on the people's 
business.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette), the co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, this bill imposes dangerous new standards 
of care on doctors under threat of criminal penalties, including up to 
5 years in jail. It is just another attempt by the majority to 
interfere with the medical judgment of doctors and other trained 
healthcare professionals, and it is, frankly, another example of why it 
is such a very, very bad idea for Congress to be legislating medical 
standards.
  H.R. 4712 is also a solution in search of a problem. There is simply 
no evidence that current law is insufficient to protect infants.
  It should go without saying that it has always been illegal to kill 
newborns. It is a complete distortion of the truth to say anything 
otherwise.
  In 2002, as my colleagues have said, Congress reaffirmed that infants 
are entitled to appropriate medical care under a law that passed on a 
bipartisan basis. I voted for it. That law left medical judgment where 
it should be: in the hands of doctors, instead of politicians.
  Today, the only example that we have heard from the other side of a 
horror that they are talking about was Dr. Kermit Gosnell, and it was a 
horror.
  And guess what?
  He was prosecuted under current law.
  And guess what?
  He is spending the rest of his life in prison, which is where he 
should be.
  Sadly, the true intent of this bill is to intimidate and shame 
doctors out of providing comprehensive reproductive healthcare to 
patients.
  The extreme and vague requirements of this bill, coupled with its 
stiff criminal and civil penalties, are only meant to have a chilling 
effect on providers, which will reduce access to safe and legal 
abortion.
  Do you know what? I have been saying this every time we have one of 
these bills on the floor--the bills that are solutions in search of 
problems. Here is what I have to say, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle: If they truly want to reduce abortion in 
this country, work with us on providing family planning and long-acting 
birth control to everybody.

  Abortion is at the lowest rate in history in this country, and the 
reason is because States, like my State of Colorado, are providing 
birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. We can do this on a 
bipartisan basis, but, instead, my colleagues choose not to, and I 
think that is a shame for every single woman and family in this 
country.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand why my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle doesn't want the President to be traveling to Pennsylvania. He 
doesn't want him to be traveling, I am sure, to any battleground 
States. It didn't work out very well for his party in 2016, when the 
President, very effectively, did just that all over the country.
  I would also say that it is brave for my colleague to read a tweet of 
the President here on the House floor. I think the last time that the 
two of us were here together, we discussed the fact that it was a tweet 
from the President that scared his leadership away

[[Page H499]]

from a crucial meeting at the White House to negotiate the budget cap 
deal, to negotiate exactly the deal that he is now so anxious to get 
done.
  I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that work is underway. I can assure 
you that we could have a deal right now today if--and I will repeat it 
once again. I know my colleague is going to say that the Republicans 
control the Senate. But he knows, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that the 
rules of the Senate require 60 votes to get something done. That means 
today that if Chuck Schumer and the Democrats in the Senate are 
unwilling to agree to the cap deal, they are unwilling to provide the 
resources that we need to fund the military, the resources to make sure 
our men and women in uniform can defend the Nation, because they are 
holding out, and they are holding that hostage over amnesty. We could 
get it done today if they would be willing simply to come to the table 
and compromise and stop holding our troops hostage.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mooney).
  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
bringing this important bill to the floor.
  We have heard it mentioned that, in 2002, in a bipartisan way, we 
already have law that a baby born alive, at any stage of gestation, any 
weeks of life, born alive, it is already illegal to kill the baby, and 
that was a bipartisan bill; so I can understand why my friends on the 
other side of the aisle want to keep changing the subject. Every vote 
today should be for this bill.
  We have already agreed that you have to save the lives of these 
children. The problem is that we don't have strong enforcement 
mechanisms. This bill provides enforcement mechanisms. This bill 
specifies any medical care. This should be a unanimous vote.
  That is what we need to talk about here today--in fact, life begins 
at conception--to have laws that protect babies born alive. Now, 
remember, these are babies who are born alive. There have been 
questions about whether or not it happens.
  Melissa Ohden, who testified in the Judiciary Committee a couple of 
years ago, was a baby born alive. She started her own network, the 
Abortion Survivors Network, where she has had contact with 203 other 
abortion survivors.
  Sometimes when they go in to start the abortion, they start the 
treatments, the dilation, and the chemical treatments, the baby comes 
out alive. I know people listening to this here today might believe 
that this is a horror story and that this doesn't happen. It happens in 
America.
  We need to fight this, make it illegal, and pass this bill, so that 
those babies are given the same protection as any other child who is 
alive. This is a no-brainer. The only shame today is that when this 
vote is cast later, if there are not 435 ``yes'' votes on that board 
today, that should be the shame of this situation. These are live 
babies. This is a no-brainer bill.
  I am proud to represent the State of West Virginia, where respect for 
human life is cherished. Every Member of this body should respect human 
life. If it is already law, you should have no problem voting for it. 
That is all the more reason to support the bill before us today.
  The voters of this country have elected us to do the job of the pro-
life majority. It is time we pass bills like this, and more bills like 
this, so that we can show people we care about the unborn children.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me respond to the gentlewoman from Wyoming because I just want to 
make sure I am clear here.
  There are less than 35 hours left before the government shuts down. I 
think that is a pretty big deal that should concern Republicans and 
Democrats.
  I want to be clear. I don't care if the President goes to 
Pennsylvania. He can fly on his nice jet, enjoy lifestyles of the rich 
and famous or whatever he does, and go anywhere he wants in this 
country. I don't care where he travels to.
  What we object to is the fact that this House is going to recess 
during this critical time so that he can bring along a whole bunch of 
Republican Members of Congress to be part of a political event at this 
crucial moment when the government is about to shut down. I find that 
astonishing.
  The gentlewoman talks about how we owe it to the men and women in 
uniform to make sure we support our military. Do you think our men and 
women in uniform want us to take a break right now so that Republican 
Members can join the President on his fancy jet and go to Pennsylvania 
for a political rally? Is that where the priorities of this Republican 
majority really are?
  I guess it is a habit. The last time we almost had a shutdown, in 
December, the Republicans took a break so that they could go to the 
White House for a party to celebrate their tax bill.
  I am sorry. I know a lot of Republicans in my district and across the 
country who I don't think prioritize parties and political rallies over 
us doing our business. Either postpone the political rally or have the 
President go without Members of Congress. But the idea to recess until 
after 7 at this crucial moment when so much is in the balance I find 
just unbelievably beyond the pale.
  Mr. Speaker, for months the majority has been holding the healthcare 
of 9 million children and over 9 million individuals, including seniors 
and pregnant women, hostage while they passed tax breaks for 
millionaires and billionaires. Well, time is up. With each day that we 
fail to act, our constituents face uncertain times. It is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, even President Trump says he agrees that we need to act 
on CHIP. Just this morning he tweeted: ``CHIP should be part of a long-
term solution, not a 30-day or a short-term extension.''
  Well, here is the chance to stop playing politics with CHIP--and 
community health centers as well--and do just that. If we defeat the 
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up 
Representative McEachin's bill, H.R. 4820, the Advancing Seniors and 
Kids Act.
  This bill would restore certainty and stability to so many of our 
vulnerable citizens by responsibly addressing critical healthcare 
priorities. It permanently reauthorizes CHIP; it reauthorizes community 
health centers for 2 years; and it includes other vital healthcare 
programs that provide relief to pregnant women, seniors, and many more.
  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 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. McEachin) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, my Advancing Seniors and Kids Act would 
permanently reauthorize CHIP, fund community health centers, prevent 
damaging cuts to our safety net hospitals, and make other changes that 
protect the health of children, seniors, and our most vulnerable 
friends and neighbors.
  For months, Congress has failed to act on these issues, and the 
result has been completely avoidable pain and suffering. Right now, 
Americans wake up every day and worry: How much longer will my child, 
my family members have healthcare?
  Mr. Speaker, we can take that fear away right now. Extending CHIP and 
funding community health centers, these are commonsense policies with 
bipartisan support. We should have passed clean extensions a long time 
ago, but we can make amends right now.
  We know that healthcare coverage saves lives. We know that CHIP 
covers almost 9 million children. It is critically important that we do 
the right thing. If we let CHIP lapse, if we do not protect hospitals 
and community centers, there will be horrible consequences for families 
across this country.
  Today more Americans have coverage than ever before. Medical 
bankruptcies are a lot less common than they were in the past. We are 
making progress.
  I am urging my colleagues to build on that progress and not to 
abandon it.

[[Page H500]]

A solution is right here in front of us. I urge all of my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the previous question and join me in supporting quality 
and affordable healthcare for all Americans.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, if my colleague from Massachusetts is so 
concerned about the government shutdown, about children's health, about 
providing relief for healthcare, then I assume that he will be voting 
``yes'' for the CR that comes to the floor later today, which, in fact, 
does extend CHIP, which, in fact, does help to provide relief from the 
terrible medical device tax, and which will keep the government open. I 
think that, if he wants to make sure that his objectives are met, there 
is a simple solution to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, there are some issues we debate here in the 
House that, frankly, should not be a matter of question in anyone's 
mind. One of those is whether or not a baby born and is outside of the 
womb deserves protection.
  Sometimes abortion attempts fail and babies are born alive: its heart 
is beating, muscles moving, and lungs working. Tragically, some 
abortion providers then kill these infants directly or through neglect 
and exposure, and this is unconscionable.

  The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act says that a baby who 
survives an abortion must be treated at a hospital with the same care 
as a baby born alive naturally at the same state of pregnancy. The bill 
includes criminal sanctions against any abortion provider who kills a 
baby born alive.
  Mr. Speaker, killing a baby outside of the womb is unquestionably the 
taking of an innocent human life. I urge unanimous support of 
Representative Blackburn's bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming that I am not going to vote for the CR because it doesn't do 
anything for community health centers and doesn't do anything to 
alleviate the burden of DSH payments for the hospitals that provide to 
vulnerable communities and doesn't fund Veterans Health the way we want 
it to. There is a whole bunch of stuff.
  I just want this process to move forward so we can get back to 
negotiating and actually get a deal that is bipartisan that we all can 
be proud of. That is why--tell your Members: Please don't go on this 
political rally today. Instead, let's keep this House going and let's 
do the people's work.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Frankel).
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my, my, my, here we go again, 
Republicans playing politics with deeply personal healthcare decisions 
that belong between women and their physicians.
  The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is not going to save 
lives. It is going to wrench us back to the dark days of coat hanger 
medicine where women were killed and maimed in back alleys.
  This legislation has one aim: intimidate good and decent doctors; 
threaten them with imprisonment if they dare to perform a legal 
abortion, exercising their own medical judgment and with the consent of 
their patient.
  I strongly oppose this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the women of this country are watching. We will not go 
back.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot about how we can't do 
two things at once around here. We have 435 Members of the House of 
Representatives. We have multiple committees. There are negotiations 
going on in other rooms right now, but there is no time to do this 
important piece of legislation to stop infanticide in this country. It 
is like, wow, can Members of Congress not walk and chew gum at the same 
time?
  I would invite my Democratic colleagues: Here, try some gum. We need 
to do this.
  This empowers nurses. This empowers those assistants who see 
something that is terribly wrong with an abortion that went wrong and 
they have a chance. Instead, they have to clandestinely sneak out that 
surviving baby and take them somewhere else because they can't get the 
care they need; they might get in trouble from their boss.
  What kind of country is that? Why is this even a debate in a 
civilized country in 2018 that you wouldn't do everything you can, 
after the already difficult or bad decision on an abortion, that a baby 
who survived, that we are not going to do everything we can to swoop it 
away and help it survive? What are we talking about here? This is 
unbelievable to me.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to pass this legislation and empower those 
nurses, empower those assistants who see what is wrong and allow them 
to do the right thing.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor on this. I want to 
make sure that people know that I am an original cosponsor of the 
underlying bill. I support the underlying bill. I have signed on to 
every piece of pro-life legislation that I can find, and I came here to 
save as many lives as we can.
  My question out here is: What do you have to do to break out of the 
straightjacket of incrementalism and get to actually saving numbers of 
lives?
  My hat is off to Jill Stanek. She brought this bill a long way. We 
are going to honor her today on the vote on the final passage of the 
bill.
  But I am putting up a procedural vote, a ``no'' vote on the rule 
today, because we have 170 cosponsors on the Heartbeat bill. I have 
gone to every meeting. Nobody brought this bill up as the premier bill, 
and somehow, one outside organization came in and lobbied to put this 
ahead. It had 61 cosponsors instead of 170. There has been no hearing.
  I am for the bill. Attach them both together. Let's save all the 
lives we can. But if nobody has the courage to step up and say what is 
wrong with this process, then we're never going to fix the process.
  So I am going to vote ``no'' on the rule. I won't ask anybody else to 
do that. I will vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I will go back 
to work to save as many lives as we possibly can.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Iowa: the 
process stinks.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, we have heard some outrageous 
arguments from our colleagues on the other side in the last hour or so. 
I have heard things like the argument that this is unnecessarily 
legislating medical standards. They said that this should be a matter 
of medical judgment. Really?
  A commitment to the sanctity of every single human life is essential 
to who we are as Americans and, more fundamental than that, who we are 
as human beings.
  They have also argued that this is a solution in search of a problem, 
but they ignore the data. According to the CDC, between 2003 and 2014, 
588 of the infant deaths reported included a record that the cause of 
death was ``termination of pregnancy affecting a fetus and a newborn.'' 
The CDC acknowledges that this could be an underestimate.

  I can tell you from my own experience, firsthand, over two decades 
litigating against the abortion industry in Louisiana that that 
industry always underreports their numbers of terminations and, 
certainly, their complications.
  Just yesterday, I spoke with my friend Brandi in Baton Rouge. She is, 
herself, a survivor of a failed abortion attempt. She was left to die, 
and now she lives with severe disabilities because of that. She is a 
passionate advocate for life. Mr. Speaker, every single one of us 
should be.
  The most important responsibility of a just government is to defend 
the defenseless. With the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 
it is necessary to protect the most vulnerable in our society, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

[[Page H501]]

  (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the opposing of the 
rule and opposing of H.R. 4712 to support the right of a woman to 
choose and to support loving families.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Rule and the 
underlying bill.
  I strongly oppose this latest attempt by the Republican House 
majority to limit women's rights to safe and legal abortions.
  H.R. 4712 amends the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act--a 2002 law 
that the pro-choice community did not oppose.
  This bill, however, adds penalties to the law and an entirely new 
section in which Congress attempts to intrude directly into medical 
practice of abortion care for anti-choice ideological purposes.
  Anti-choice lawmakers say this new bill is necessary because some 
babies ``survive'' abortion procedures.
  They cite the now-discredited videos attacking Planned Parenthood as 
their evidence.
  Of course, such allegations are untrue: newborns already have many 
legal protections, and there is no similarity between safe, legal 
abortion care and infanticide.
  This bill is a solution in search of a problem.
  No evidence of lawbreaking has been uncovered that necessitates 
congressional involvement.
  Abortion practice is safe, legal, and humane; any evidence of 
wrongdoing can and should be handled under existing law.
  If there is ever a case of harm or mistreatment of newborns, then of 
course, it should be investigated and prosecuted.
  No such case exists here.
  That makes it even clearer that H.R. 4712 must have other purposes; 
we believe the bill's true goals are to inflame the public with 
outrageous accusations, to interfere with medical care, and to 
intimidate doctors out of practice.
  This legislation is consistent with the assaults that the Trump 
Administration and anti-abortion members of Congress in both the House 
and Senate have been undertaking throughout the 115th Congress and show 
no signs of ending.
  The bill intrudes into medical practice, its mandate is so broad and 
the penalties so severe--up to five years in prison and the threat of 
financially crippling lawsuits--that one can only conclude that H.R. 
4712 hopes to intimidate abortion providers out of practice.
  This interference in medical care could also cause tremendous 
additional grief to some families making difficult decisions in 
heartbreaking cases.
  We would not tolerate similar intrusion by politicians into any other 
medical specialty; abortion care is no different.
  Finally, it is important to put this legislation into the proper 
context.
  We are in the midst of an unprecedented assault against reproductive 
rights: this bill is just one in a litany to restrict a woman's right 
to choose while using women as political pawns with an extremist, anti-
choice base.
  Instead of spending time attempting to roll back women's 
constitutionally protected rights, this House should be advancing 
legislation that will reform our truly broken immigration and criminal 
justice systems.
  The bill before us is offered for a simple purpose; to sensationalize 
opposition to abortion and serve as a political decoy to shut down our 
government.
  The United States Supreme Court ruled over 40 years ago, in Roe v. 
Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), that a woman's constitutional right to 
privacy includes her right to abortion.
  Since this landmark decision, abortion rates and risks have 
substantially declined, as have the number of teen and unwanted 
pregnancies.
  Restricting all access to reproductive and women's health services 
only exacerbates a woman's risk of an unintended pregnancy and fails to 
accomplish any meaningful overthrow of Roe v. Wade.
  In recent years, state policymakers have passed hundreds of 
restrictions on abortion care under the guise of protecting women's 
health and safety.
  Fights here in Congress have been no different.
  In my state of Texas a law that would have cut off access to 75 
percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state was challenged 
before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015.
  On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional 
a Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that 
provided the full range of services would be required to have a 
hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements.
  This requirement meant that only 7 clinics would be allowed to 
continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to 
women.
  Texas has 268,580 square miles only second in size to the state of 
California.
  The impact of the law in implementation would have ended access to 
reproductive services for millions of women in my state.
  In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to 
reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10 
healthcare providers in the state of Texas.
  The Supreme Court once again intervened on the behalf of Texas women 
to block the move to close clinics in my state.
  It seems every month we are faced with a new attack on women's access 
to reproductive health care, often couched in those same terms.
  But we know that's not really the case.
  If my colleagues were so concerned about women's health and safety, 
they would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based 
proactive policies that improve women's health and well-being.
  Instead, they are attacking Planned Parenthood in a back-handed 
attempt to ban abortion.
  That is their number one priority. This is certainly not about 
protecting women's health, it's about politics.
  Just as the 1988 Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel 
(or the Blue Ribbon Commission) sought to separate the question of 
ethics of abortion from the question ethics of using fetal tissue from 
legal elective abortions for medical research when laying the 
foundation for the 1993, NIH Health Revitalization Act (which passed 
overwhelmingly with bipartisan support), we must separate the personal 
views of abortion from the legal issues of federal compliance.
  Namely, the NIH Health Revitalization Act prohibits the payment or 
receipt of money or any other form of valuable consideration for fetal 
tissue, regardless of whether the program to which the tissue is being 
provided is funded or not.
  A limited exception, and crux of the applicable issue of legality, 
lies with the provision allowing for reimbursement for actual expenses 
(e.g. storage, processing, transportation, etc.) of the tissue.
  Planned Parenthood repeatedly maintains and supports that their 
affiliates involved with fetal tissue research comply with this 
requirement.
  In fact, of the 700+ affiliate health care centers across the 
country, only 4 Planned Parenthood affiliates currently offer tissue 
donation services and of those 4, only 2 (California and Washington) 
offer fetal tissue donation services--that's 1 percent of all Planned 
Parenthood service centers.
  The California affiliate receives a modest reimbursement of $60 per 
tissue specimen and the Washington affiliate receives no reimbursement.
  It is worth noting that fetal tissue has been used for decades.
  Since the 1920's researchers have used fetal tissue to study and 
treat various neurological disorders, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, 
immune deficiencies, cancers and life-threatening blood diseases.
  One of the earliest advances with fetal tissue was to use fetal 
kidney cells to create the first poliovirus vaccines, which are now 
estimated to save 550,000 lives worldwide every year.
  The most widely known application in the field of human fetal tissue 
transplantation has been the Treatment of Parkinson's disease.
  Many of our other common vaccines, such as polio, measles, chicken 
pox, rubella and shingles, have been developed through the use of fetal 
tissue or cell lines derived from fetal tissue.
  When looking at the 1 percent of health care providers involved in 
fetal tissue donation and research, and no clear credible proof of 
illegal activity, it is obvious that attacks on Planned Parenthood are 
wholly misguided.
  Planned Parenthood has one of the most rigorous Medical standards and 
accreditation processes in the country.
  It is the only national provider that has developed a single set of 
evidence-based Medical Standards and Guidelines that define how health 
care is provided throughout the country.
  Guidelines are developed and updated annually by a group of 
nationally-renowned experts, physicians, and scientists, including 
medical experts from Harvard and Columbia.
  Planned Parenthood affiliates must submit to accreditation reviews 
that include 100 indicators (or high level areas of review) and over 
600 individual Elements of Performance (or measures for review). Half 
of these relate to the provision of medical care and patient safety.
  Planned Parenthood has strict requirements regarding compliance with 
all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. A specific area of 
compliance is with mandatory reporting laws and regulations regarding 
reporting in instances where the welfare of a minor is endangered.
  All staff with patient contact are rigorously trained regarding 
compliance with federal, state and local laws and regulations governing 
service to minors.

[[Page H502]]

  Violations of mandatory reporting regulations are subject to 
disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
  It is no secret that the Center for Medical Progress is an extreme 
anti-choice organization with a goal of outlawing legal abortion 
procedures in this country.
  To achieve that goal, they have shamelessly targeted Planned 
Parenthood and the funding that provides healthcare services to 
millions of women every year.
  They continue to use deceptive tactics and secret videos to try and 
undermine Planned Parenthood.
  Just like Live Action, the Center for Medical Progress is not a group 
that can be taken credibly.
  The Center for Medical Progress is simply recreating a history of 
doctoring and manipulating video intended to create misimpressions 
about Planned Parenthood.
  It is a coordinated effort by anti-choice forces--not only on Planned 
Parenthood or a woman's right to choose, but on women's health care 
across the board.
  At the same time, national media is reporting about a major 
coordinated push by anti-choice groups and Members of Congress to 
defund Planned Parenthood.
  This coordinated effort to defund Planned Parenthood is an assault on 
all progressive health care, service, and advocacy organizations who 
aim to provide vital care and services to women and men across this 
country.
  The public is standing by Planned Parenthood, which plays a vital 
role in defending women's health and rights.
  Hundreds of thousands have already spoken up, including leading 
groups and communities such as the growing voice of our millennial 
generation.
  My colleagues should be doing more to connect our youth and women to 
services that help them reduce their risk of unintended pregnancies and 
STD's, and improve their overall health through preventative 
screenings, education and planning, rather than restricting their 
access to lawfully entitled family planning and private health 
services.
  I urge all Members to vote against the rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support of 
this rule and to provide consideration of H.R. 4712, the Born-Alive 
Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would ensure that children who 
survive an abortion, or an attempted abortion, are given proper medical 
treatment.
  I am a proud cosponsor of this bill to ensure that babies born alive 
are transported and admitted to a hospital immediately following 
emergency care. As a Christian and as a father of two, I hold 
maintaining the sanctity of life as my highest priority.
  The House of Representatives voted to pass this legislation in the 
114th Congress, but it was met with an unresponsive Senate. I will vote 
again to support this bill to hold healthcare providers accountable, 
protect and empower mothers, and help ensure that these innocent 
children are provided the same medical care that any other newborn 
would receive. I remain hopeful that this time around we can send this 
important legislation to the President to be signed into law.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is left on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming has 4 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 minutes remaining.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman prepared to close?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as long as the gentlewoman doesn't have 
any other speakers, I am prepared to close.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say to all of my colleagues, 
Democrats and Republicans, that this process is lousy. This is yet 
another closed rule. The bill before us didn't even go through 
committee. There was not a hearing. There was not a markup. It just 
miraculously appeared right before an anti-choice rally, and here it 
is, take it or leave it. That is not the way this place is supposed to 
be run.
  At some point, no matter what your ideology is, no matter what you 
believe about some of these issues, you have to be for a more open 
process, a more deliberative process. This diminishes the House of 
Representatives. This is not what the people, I don't care what the 
political party or ideology may be, want from their Congress. They want 
a more open and transparent process.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill before us, as I said before, is a sound bite. 
It is going nowhere, but it has been introduced, and we are going to be 
voting on it purely for political purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning, the majority whip announced: ``Upon 
conclusion of debate on H.R. 195''--that is the CR--``the House will 
recess until 7 p.m.''
  Recess? I mean, recess? With all that is at stake, we are going to 
recess?
  This isn't a time for recess or a political rally.
  Shame on Republicans who are delaying action in this House on moving 
the process forward on a continuing resolution, to try to buy some time 
to make it better, hopefully, so that it can earn bipartisan support. 
Shame on them for going to a political rally instead of staying here 
and doing their job.
  This is the time to responsibly fund government. Those of us on the 
Democratic side have a lot of issues with what the House leadership is 
ramming through in terms of a CR. We were not part of that discussion. 
We were not asked what our values are and what we think is important. 
This is purely a product that the Republicans negotiated with 
Republicans.
  My hope is that we have time to make it better, but when you recess 
until 7, not to make it better, not to negotiate, but so that 
Republicans can go to a political rally, shame on you for doing that 
with all that is at stake.
  Our soldiers don't want us to recess. Those who depend on community 
health centers don't want us to recess. Our veterans don't want us to 
recess. Yet everybody's perfectly fine on the other side of the aisle 
with taking a break; no big deal; no rush, nothing, as we get closer 
and closer to this crisis.
  At some point we need responsible leadership in this House, and that 
begins with a return to regular order, a more open and transparent 
process, a respect for the views of the minority, and it means 
prioritizing the business of the American people.
  I will say funding the government is more important than a political 
rally in Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, my 
colleague from Massachusetts. There is shameful action underway in this 
Congress, and that shameful action is the fact that, I will say once 
again, we are in a situation where our men and women in uniform have 
not received the appropriations that they need to do the job that we 
are asking them to do. And the reason they haven't--we have passed an 
authorization bill through this body; we have passed an appropriations 
bill through this body, but the Democrats in the Senate are refusing to 
act. The Democrats in the Senate who hold the key to getting 60 votes 
in the United States Senate are refusing to act. The reason they are 
refusing to act, Mr. Speaker, is because they want amnesty for illegal 
immigrants, and they are holding hostage the extent to which we are 
able to provide resources to fund our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous amount of urgency on both sides of 
the aisle. I respect my colleague from Massachusetts and I respect his 
frustration, but I do not respect, Mr. Speaker, the extent to which he 
is accusing us of shameful behavior.
  We are on this floor today talking about a bill that will protect 
babies who are born alive after abortions. The shameful behavior is 
that, on the other side of the aisle, they want to talk politics, they 
want to talk posturing, they want to talk process. They don't want to 
talk about babies who are born alive after abortion. I know why they 
don't want to talk about it, because it is uncomfortable. They would 
rather ignore that it is actually happening, but we can't ignore it.

  Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation in this body to ensure that we 
provide protection and care for those who cannot, for the most 
vulnerable among us. Mr. Speaker, it is a moral obligation to ensure 
the protection of every baby born alive.

[[Page H503]]

  I am proud to be here today on behalf of the rule, Mr. Speaker, and I 
urge adoption of both the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4712, so 
we can continue to do what is right, what is morally required of us, 
and that is to protect and nurture and make sure we have provided 
safeguards for the unborn and for those who are born alive after 
abortion.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 694 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     4820) to extend funding for certain public health programs, 
     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 among 
     and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority 
     members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce. 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 4820.
                                  ____


        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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________