[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 840-850]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 161, NATURAL GAS PIPELINE 
  PERMITTING REFORM ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 36, 
                PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 38 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 38

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 161) to 
     provide for the timely consideration of all licenses, 
     permits, and approvals required under Federal law with 
     respect to the siting, construction, expansion, or operation 
     of any natural gas pipeline projects. 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 Energy 
     and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 36) to amend 
     title 18, United States Code, to protect pain-capable unborn 
     children, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The 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 or their respective designees; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. FOXX. 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.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  House Resolution 38 provides for a closed rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, 
and a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 161, the Natural Gas 
Pipeline Permitting Reform Act.
  The rule before us today, Mr. Speaker, provides for consideration of 
H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. It is truly 
fitting that the House considers this legislation in the shadow of the 
42nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions that 
gave Americans abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy.
  This legislation is a commonsense step in recognizing the truth that 
science has made more clear with the passage of time: the unborn child 
in the womb is alive and a functioning member of the human family.
  Science has shown us that the most fundamental precursors to an 
unborn child feeling pain are already in place by 8 weeks in 
development. Necessary connections between the brain and spinal cord 
are in place and complete by 18 weeks.
  The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony by expert physicians 
that the earlier premature babies are delivered, the more acutely they 
feel pain. It is clear that unborn children at 20 weeks of development 
are capable of feeling pain and deserving of protection.
  In spite of the 60 percent of Americans who believe we should limit 
abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle will continue to protest this sensible legislation, 
seeking to keep us in the company of only seven other nations that 
allow elective abortion after 20 weeks, which includes such well-known 
human rights leaders as North Korea, China, and Vietnam.
  This vital, lifesaving legislation is not the only important 
legislation the House will consider this week. This rule also provides 
for consideration of H.R. 161, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting 
Reform Act.
  The Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act recognizes the 
positive impact America's shale revolution has had on energy prices and 
the potential it holds to lower them further. We are in the midst of 
another hard winter, and red tape reduction is necessary to ensure we 
have the infrastructure needed to ensure low-cost natural gas is able 
to reach our coldest States when they need it most without price shocks 
or shortages.
  H.R. 161 introduces critical reform to ensure prompt consideration of 
necessary permitting requests for construction or updates to natural 
gas pipelines, providing certainty to energy companies and the 
consumers they serve.
  The legislation would require the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to approve or deny a requested pipeline certificate no later 
than 12 months after receiving a complete application that is ready to 
be processed and has engaged in the prefiling process.
  H.R. 161 also ensures that relevant agencies provide approval or 
denial within 90 days of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
completing its final environmental document.
  Finally, the legislation would put permits into effect, 
notwithstanding agencies' failures to provide approval within the time 
mandated, with allowances for the addition of conditions consistent 
with the final environmental document.
  H.R. 161 is the reintroduction of H.R. 1900, which passed this House 
on a bipartisan basis in the 113th Congress. H.R. 1900 received 
extensive committee consideration, including numerous hearings on the 
underlying issues, prompting the legislation, as well as the 
subcommittee hearing and subcommittee and full committee markups on the 
bill.
  Both H.R. 36 and H.R. 161 are truly important legislation that 
Americans would be well-served to have considered this week, and I 
commend both my bills to my colleagues as deserving of their support.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while I have great respect for the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina, I don't have a lot of respect for this process. I would 
like to begin today by saying a word or two about the process being 
used by the Republicans here on the floor--actually, three words: ``It 
stinks. Again.''
  We are all very happy--delighted even--to hear our Republican friends 
say that they wanted to make this Congress into a place where we could 
work together, but actions speak louder than words, and here are some 
of their actions: five closed rules.
  Until yesterday, 100 percent of our Rules Committee meetings have 
been called so-called emergency meetings, and 100 percent of the bills 
the committee has sent to the floor have drawn a veto threat, and once 
again, the Republicans are using one rule for multiple bills. This is a 
disturbing pattern that is quickly becoming a bad habit.
  The Republican leadership apparently isn't content to exclude 
Democrats from offering substantive, germane, and thoughtful 
amendments. They are also shutting down the debate itself.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress is only a few weeks old. We have 23 months 
left to go. Are the Republicans really saying that we can't find an 
extra hour for debate during the next 23 months? Of course we can. They 
just prefer not to. It is unfair, it is undemocratic, it is 
unnecessary, and it needs to stop.
  Now, as to the bill that is before us today, last night, as we all 
know,

[[Page 841]]

President Obama laid out a bold, clear, and exciting agenda to spur 
economic growth and ensure that prosperity is shared by all Americans, 
not just the wealthy few and special interests. I thought it was a 
terrific speech.
  Apparently, my Republican friends weren't paying very close 
attention. I know they were there in this Chamber because I saw many of 
them. The Speaker himself was sitting right behind the President. Maybe 
they were sending each other cat videos or taking selfies because the 
President made it very clear that if Congress sends him bills that move 
us backward, he will veto them, and both of these bills deserve his 
veto.
  The first, H.R. 161, is a solution in search of a problem. It is as 
simple as that. The bill would automatically approve natural gas 
pipeline projects if FERC or other Federal agencies do not act on 
required permits or certificates within a rigid, unworkable timeframe.
  A GAO report concluded that FERC's pipeline permitting process is 
predictable and consistent, with 91 percent of pipeline applications 
receiving a decision within 12 months. During committee testimony last 
Congress, even industry representatives agreed that the current 
permitting process is ``generally very good.'' It is not every day that 
regulators and industry agree that the current system works.
  So why would we move forward on a bill that disrupts a system that 
works is beyond me. In fact, this bill makes it more likely that FERC 
will deny more projects just to comply with the severe timeline.
  In Massachusetts, we are dealing with the proposed Tennessee Gas 
pipeline which would run through parts of my district and would cut 
through a number of environmentally sensitive lands, including 
Northfield State Forest and the Montague aquifer and management area.
  Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment with my 
good friend Congresswoman Niki Tsongas, whose district would also be 
affected by the proposed pipeline, to keep the existing review process 
in place for proposed pipelines that cross Federal, State, or local 
conservation or recreation lands because, if we have already invested 
Federal and State money into identifying these lands as environmentally 
sensitive, it doesn't make any sense to expedite the approval of a 
pipeline that could bulldoze right through them.
  It is worth a debate. Unfortunately, Republicans on the Rules 
Committee voted down this commonsense amendment in a party-line vote.
  As the gentlewoman from North Carolina pointed out, both of these 
rules are completely closed. Even though they did not go through 
regular order, even though there were no hearings in this Congress or 
no markup, nobody--no Democrat, no Republican--can offer an amendment.
  Then there is H.R. 36. This is just the latest Republican assault on 
women's reproductive rights. It is their latest attempt to put 
politicians in the middle of the private medical decisions of women. It 
is blatantly unconstitutional, and it fails to take into consideration 
the fact that some pregnancies can have catastrophic, heartbreaking 
complications, even after 20 weeks.
  To make matters worse, this legislation lacks a reasonable exception 
for victims of rape and incest by requiring victims to report cases of 
rape and incest to law enforcement in order to have access to an 
abortion, this despite the fact that research shows that the majority 
of sexual assaults are unreported, and on top of that, the exception on 
incest is only for minors.
  Mr. Speaker, what really bothers me about bills like this is that the 
same people who vote for them routinely vote to cut the WIC program, to 
cut Head Start and childcare programs and SNAP and school lunch 
programs, and elementary and secondary education funding. This 
hypocrisy is breathtaking.
  Mr. Speaker, leading medical groups agree that doctors, in 
consultation with women and their families, should make medical 
decisions, not the politicians.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. They deserve a 
better process, and they deserve better legislation. We certainly have 
a lot to do to help get this country to continue on the road to 
prosperity, to make sure that everybody can share in this economy's 
growth.
  I urge my colleagues: let's focus on those issues, let's come 
together and do something for the American people, and enough of these 
message bills.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I need to remind this House that during the Democrats' time in the 
majority, there were two rules packages providing consideration of 
seven unrelated measures.
  In the 110th Congress, their first year in the majority, the rules 
package provided for consideration of five measures.
  In the 111th Congress, the Democrat majority provided for the 
consideration of two separate measures in the rules package.
  The Democrat majority went directly to the floor with these bills, 
with no committee consideration and without even allowing the Rules 
Committee to debate these measures or report an appropriate rule for 
consideration.
  In the 110th Congress, Ranking Member Slaughter and Democrats on the 
Rules Committee reported three additional closed rules, starting the 
Congress out with eight closed rules in the opening weeks.
  In the 111th Congress, Democrats reported out two additional closed 
rules, for a total of four closed rules in the opening weeks of that 
Congress.
  Unlike our Democrat colleagues, the Speaker and Chairman Sessions had 
provided the opportunity to have hearings before the Rules Committee.
  It is our goal to return to regular order now that our committees are 
organizing, but the false attacks by my colleagues do not stand up to 
the light of day when you compare our records.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith), one of the preeminent defenders of life in this Congress.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend for 
yielding and thank her for her strong leadership for human rights and 
for the unborn.
  Mr. Speaker, pain--we all dread it, we avoid it, we even fear it, and 
we all go to extraordinary lengths to mitigate its severity and its 
duration; yet an entire age group of human beings are, today, subjected 
to a deadly, extraordinarily painful procedure, one of which is called 
the dismemberment method, the D&E.
  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a modest but 
necessary attempt to at least protect babies who are 20 weeks old and 
pain capable from having to suffer and die from abortion. Children, 
including children with disabilities, Mr. Speaker, deserve better 
treatment than pain-filled dismemberment.
  One leading expert in the field of fetal pain, Dr. Anand, at the 
University of Tennessee, stated in his expert report, commissioned by 
the U.S. Department of Justice:

       The human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain 
     from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain 
     perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that 
     perceived by term newborns or older children.

                              {time}  1245

  Dr. Colleen Malloy, assistant professor, Division of Neonatology at 
Northwestern University, in her testimony before the House Judiciary 
Committee, said:

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

  In other words, there are children the same age who, in utero, can be 
killed by abortion--and painfully--or who have been born and who are 
now being given lifesaving assistance. She went on to say:

       In today's medical arena, we resuscitate patients at this 
     age and are able to witness their ex-utero growth.


[[Page 842]]


  Dr. Malloy concludes:

       I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to 
     horrific procedures such as those that involve limb 
     detachment or cardiac injection.

  Again, that is what the abortionists do.
  Surgeons today, Mr. Speaker, are entering the womb to perform life-
enhancing and lifesaving corrective surgeries on unborn children. They 
have seen those babies flinch, jerk around, move around, and recoil 
from sharp objects and incisions. As they seek to heal, surgeons are 
today routinely administering anesthesia to unborn children in the 
womb--a best medical practice--to protect them from pain. We now know 
that the child ought to be treated as a patient and that there are many 
anomalies, sicknesses, and disabilities that could be treated with a 
degree of success while the child is still in utero. The child ought to 
be seen as a patient. When those interventions are performed, again, 
anesthesia is given.
  Last June, TIME Magazine's cover story, ``Saving Preemies,'' explored 
the preemie revolution and how cutting-edge medicine and dedicated 
caregivers are helping the tiniest babies to survive and thrive. TIME 
says:

       Thanks to advances that had not been made even a few years 
     ago, the odds of surviving and thriving are improving all the 
     time.

  Abortionists, on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, are in the business of 
ensuring that children neither survive nor thrive. Children, including 
children with disabilities, deserve better treatment than pain-filled 
dismemberment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the ranking member of 
the Rules Committee, I yield myself such time as I may consume as I 
want to respond to this issue about process.
  When Speaker Boehner became the Speaker of this House, in his opening 
speech, one of the things he said was:

       You will always have the right to a robust debate and an 
     open process that allows you to represent your constituents--
     to make your case, to offer alternatives, and to be heard.

  Clearly, we have not been granted that in any way, shape, or form.
  While the gentlewoman may point to the sins of the past of Democratic 
majorities, nothing compares to what the Republicans did in the last 
Congress. The Republicans presided over the most closed Congress in the 
history of the United States of America.
  I mean, you made history, and that is not something to be proud of.
  When my friends talk about openness and transparency and about the 
desire to allow this to be a deliberative place where people of varying 
viewpoints can have a forum to debate, it is not reflective of reality. 
We are beginning this Congress just as my colleagues conducted the last 
Congress--in the most closed way possible. I regret that very much, 
especially on bills that have not even been through the committee 
hearing process in this Congress or that have not been marked up.
  At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I want to thank my colleague for his great work and 
for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, today, The Wall Street Journal polled the American 
public and found that these are their top three priorities: creating 
jobs, defeating ISIS, and reducing the Federal budget deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert that piece from The Wall Street Journal into 
the Record.

                     [From The Wall Street Journal]

         Poll Finds Agenda Gap Between Leaders, American People

                            (By Janet Hook)

       Republicans are trying to burnish their party's image--and 
     Congress'--by promising to ``get things done'' now that the 
     GOP controls both the House and Senate. But a new Wall Street 
     Journal/NBC News poll shows that the public doesn't care much 
     about some of the first things the GOP, or President Barack 
     Obama, is trying to do.
       The poll conducted from Jan. 14-17 found that two of the 
     major issues congressional Republicans and the White House 
     have identified as candidates for bipartisan action--trade 
     and simplification of the tax code--didn't even make the top 
     five issues that people feel need to be addressed urgently.
       The poll tried to identify the issues that are most 
     important to Americans by asking which issues they considered 
     an ``absolute priority'' for Congress and the president to 
     act on this year, as opposed to issues that they think could 
     be delayed.
       The list was topped by enduring concerns: job creation, 
     fighting Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, reducing the 
     federal deficit and securing the U.S. border.
       But people are virtually yawning at the prospect of 
     expanding U.S. trade, a priority for an administration trying 
     to finalize a new free-trade agreement with Asian and Pacific 
     Rim countries. Only 20% said that was an urgent priority for 
     this year, 59% said it could be delayed until next year and 
     16% said it shouldn't be pursued at all.
       ``It's a reminder that this is for the most part a very 
     distant economic issue and it's not one that people focus 
     on,'' said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who 
     conducted the poll with Democrat Fred Yang.
       The apathy about trade is bipartisan. Only 22% of 
     Republicans and 21% of Democrats said it was a top priority.
       Simplifying the tax code is also an issue that's not a top-
     five policy priority for most Americans, but is treated like 
     a motherhood issue by politicians of both parties. Just over 
     half polled said it was an urgent priority--less than the 
     percentage who wanted to make ``efforts to address Iran's 
     nuclear program'' a top agenda item.
       Even some of the issues Washington lawmakers are fighting 
     over are matters of only marginal concern to many people. 
     Republicans have acted quickly on a bill to finish 
     construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and Mr. Obama threw 
     down his first veto threat over it. But nearly four in ten 
     people polled said they didn't know enough about the issue to 
     have an opinion.
       The survey of policy priorities underscored another trend 
     that doesn't bode well for bipartisan cooperation: On all but 
     a handful of issues, such as job creation and infrastructure 
     repair, the poll found big disparities in the interests of 
     the two parties. So, while 67% of Democrats identified income 
     inequality as an urgent priority, only 19% of Republicans 
     did. U.S. border security was a top priority for 79% of 
     Republicans but only 43% of Democrats.
       It's not surprising, then, that the poll found people were 
     down on the idea of having divided government. Mr. Obama and 
     Republicans in Congress may agree on the need to ``get things 
     done.'' The problem is there isn't a lot of agreement on what 
     ``things'' should get priority.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, why am I bringing that up? The offense, 
to me, is that there are so many people in Congress who always want to 
bring up this issue of eating away at Roe v. Wade. They don't have the 
nerve, I think, really, to try to take that away.
  Roe v. Wade gave women a choice, and I believe that, if you don't 
want to have that choice yourself, don't use it; but what right do 
people who do not agree with choice have to make it the law of the 
land--to require everybody to live under what they believe is true?
  Now, there is not a scintilla of scientific evidence that at 20 weeks 
pain is felt. The neural connections are not there to have that happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to insert into the Record what scientists--
the executive vice president and others--have said from the American 
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in that this is not 
possible.

                                                 January 21, 2015.
       Dear Member of the House of Representatives, We, the 
     undersigned medical and public health organizations, stand in 
     strong opposition to H.R. 36, the so-called ``Pain-Capable 
     Unborn Child Protection Act,'' sponsored by Representative 
     Trent Franks (R-AZ) and Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-
     TN). Politicians are not doctors and should not interfere in 
     personal, medical decisions.
       If enacted, H.R. 36 would ban most abortions in the United 
     States at 20 weeks after fertilization, clearly before 
     viability. The bill threatens providers with fines and/or 
     imprisonment for providing professional and compassionate 
     care, and is intended to intimidate and discourage doctors 
     from providing abortion care. This bill places health care 
     providers in an untenable situation--when they are facing a 
     complex, urgent medical situation, they must think about an 
     unjust law instead of about how to protect the health and 
     safety of their patients.
       Politicians are not medical experts. H.R. 36 disregards the 
     health issues and real life situations that women can face in 
     pregnancy. Every woman faces her own unique circumstances, 
     challenges, and potential complications. She needs to be able 
     to make decisions based on her physician's medical advice and 
     what is right for her and her family.
       H.R. 36 would force a doctor to deny an abortion to a woman 
     who has determined that terminating a pregnancy is the right 
     decision for her, including women carrying a

[[Page 843]]

     pregnancy with severe and lethal anomalies that may not be 
     diagnosed until after 20 weeks in pregnancy and women with 
     serious medical conditions brought on or exacerbated by 
     pregnancy. H.R. 36 contains no exception to preserve the 
     health of the woman. Instead, it includes a vague life 
     endangerment exception which exposes doctors to the threat of 
     criminal prosecution, limiting their options for care that is 
     often needed in complex, urgent medical situations.
       Moreover, H.R. 36 would dictate how physicians should care 
     for their patients based on inaccurate and unscientific 
     claims. Conclusive research shows that contrary to the 
     sponsors' claims, the fetus doesn't have the neurological 
     structures needed to experience pain until significantly 
     later in pregnancy.
       We strongly oppose governmental interference in the 
     patient-provider relationship and criminalizing provision of 
     care to women and their families. H.R. 36 jeopardizes the 
     health of women in the U.S. by limiting access to safe and 
     legal abortion and replaces personal decision-making by women 
     and their doctors with political ideology. Our organizations 
     urge you to oppose passage of H.R. 36.
           Sincerely,
       American College of Nurse-Midwives,
       American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
       American Medical Students Association,
       American Medical Women's Association,
       American Nurses Association,
       American Society for Reproductive Medicine,
       Association of Reproductive Health Professionals,
       Medical Students for Choice,
       National Abortion Federation,
       National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's 
     Health,
       National Family Planning and Reproductive Health 
     Association,
       Physicians for Reproductive Health,
       Planned Parenthood Federation of America,
       Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine,
       Society of Family Planning.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, as a scientist, I have learned that this 
Congress does not take scientific facts as facts but that it views them 
as, maybe, suggestions. Yet how often it is that we are playing with 
people's lives. It is the most personal decision one could ever make, 
and it should be made between the woman, her family, or whomever she 
wants to consult--her doctor, her priest, her pastor--anybody--but not 
the Congress of the United States.
  Why do men in blue suits and red ties get to make that decision when 
it has nothing to do with scientific or medical facts? It is absolutely 
astonishing to me that this continues over and over again; and in the 
States that have passed 20-week abortion bills, the bills have always 
been overturned with regard to the constitutional question, and this 
will be as well.
  Time and time again, when asked about it, neurobiology specialists, 
obstetricians, and gynecologists the world over have refuted the 
scientific and factual premises of this bill, but nobody cares about 
that here. I saw a great button that called the people here who are 
trying to do this today ``gyneticians.'' A ``gynetician'' is described 
as a politician who knows more about women's health than doctors do.
  We can go on with this, but what we need to remember is that, last 
night, half of the President's speech dealt with people who are 
underpaid and who struggle to live in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me get right to the chase here.
  Barney Frank, our former colleague, said that many people believe 
that life begins at conception and ends at birth.
  I want to know how this Congress is going to comply with what the 
President asked us last night: Will you give more money for child care? 
for daycare? Will you give more money for early education? Will you 
make sure that mothers are paid as much as the men they are working 
with and that the same jobs pay the same? Will you do something about 
paid sick leave? Will you help these children get to college?
  Absolutely not. The record has been clear on all of these issues.
  There is something really awful when we take up the time to please 
the base of some sort out there against all scientific belief and 
everything that we know about medicine. I wish this Congress would stop 
the folly. We are faced with a lot of serious problems in this country. 
Again, as my colleague points out, we have no ability to amend it. 
Nobody else can be heard on anything else. It is simply going to be 
voted on; the Senate may or may not ever take it up; and the President 
will not sign it. It is the same thing that we did over and over in the 
last session--kill health care.
  Do everything you can. Nothing is going to be signed. No bills will 
be made. It is a shame. I have labeled it before as ``legislative 
malpractice,'' and that is exactly what is going on with this bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Once again, we find ourselves in a position in which we must correct 
the record.
  Over the last 4 years, Republicans have implemented reforms to make 
the U.S. House of Representatives more open and transparent than ever. 
Under this GOP majority, Members on both sides of the aisle have been 
allowed to offer significantly more amendments--and the House has 
operated under far more open rules--than were allowed under the 
previous Democrat-controlled House.
  The GOP majority allowed nearly 1,500 amendments to be considered on 
the House floor in the 113th Congress. Under Speaker Pelosi, the House 
did not consider a single bill under an open rule throughout the 111th 
Congress. That is the definition of a closed process, Mr. Speaker, and 
it is precisely what Speaker Boehner successfully changed to start the 
112th Congress and to continue throughout the 113th Congress. Under the 
current GOP majority, the House has considered 38 open or modified open 
rules.
  When you compare the record of the Republican majority and the most 
recent Democrat majority, any fair analysis will show that Republicans 
are running a more open, transparent House of Representatives that 
allows for greater participation by all Members.
  The problem throughout the last Congress resided in the Senate and 
its failure to act on almost everything passed by the House. When the 
Senate did decide to act, then-majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid, 
virtually locked down the amendment process on the Senate floor. When 
you compare the nearly 1,500 amendments considered on the House floor 
with the Senate's record of inaction, a more accurate picture emerges.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Poliquin).
  Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and, most 
importantly, of the underlying bill, H.R. 161, the Natural Gas Pipeline 
Permitting Reform Act. I encourage all of my colleagues, Republicans 
and Democrats, to support this important job creation bill.
  The great State of Maine is home to the most skilled papermakers in 
the world. Even so, last year, mills in Bucksport, Old Town, and 
Millinocket closed, laying off 1,000 of our workers. Soon, a fourth 
mill, which is in Madison, will temporarily shut down, furloughing 
another 215 workers.
  For each mill, the high cost of electricity to run its machinery was 
a primary reason for closure. Almost half the power plants in New 
England burn natural gas to generate electricity. We must allow the 
increased production and transportation of natural gas to drive down 
the cost of electric power and save our mills, our factories, and save 
our jobs.
  Today, I am proud to cosponsor this new legislation in order to 
expedite the permitting to construct more and larger capacity natural 
gas pipelines throughout America. I ask my Republican and Democrat 
colleagues to band together in supporting this critically important 
jobs bill. It is the fair and the right thing to do.
  Hardworking American taxpayers deserve a more effective government 
that works together to solve our serious problems. We have the 
responsibility and the authority to help our families live better 
lives, with fatter paychecks and more financial security. Let's get 
this done.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 844]]

  Let me just say for the record that facts are facts are facts. There 
is no denying that the last Republican Congress held the record for the 
most closed rules in the history of the United States.
  Maybe I am misunderstanding the current rule, but to the best of my 
knowledge, not a single amendment is allowed, notwithstanding that in 
this Congress there have been no hearings and no markups.
  Is it appropriate, Mr. Speaker, for me to ask unanimous consent to 
amend H.R. 36 and make it an open rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina would 
have to yield for such a request to be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentlewoman from North Carolina yield?
  Ms. FOXX. I will not yield.
  Mr. McGOVERN. So there it is.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. I want to thank the ranking member for yielding, for his 
leadership, and for really making it clear exactly what we are dealing 
with today and why many of us strongly oppose this rule and this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Over 40 
years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman could make her own 
personal health care decisions without interference from politicians. 
Yet here we are again, in 2015, debating this constitutionally 
protected right.
  H.R. 36 would ban all abortions at 20 weeks, with extremely limited 
exceptions. A ban on an abortion after 20 weeks makes it harder for 
women who are already facing difficult circumstances. This is so bad. 
This is so wrong.

                              {time}  1300

  Every woman has a right to a safe medical procedure. And this 
decision, while difficult, is hers to make, not yours and not mine. 
This is her decision.
  This bill is part of a broader effort to chip away at abortion 
access, a right that has already been decided by the Supreme Court and 
is the law of the land. Yet Republicans once again are focused on 
dictating what women can do with their bodies, denying their rights and 
endangering their health.
  Mr. Speaker, this radical GOP bill undermines women's constitutional 
rights under Roe v. Wade. This is a dangerous assault on women's health 
freedoms. Women should not have to justify their personal medical 
decisions.
  Abortions later in a pregnancy can involve rare, severe fetal 
abnormalities or pose serious risks to the health of women, but these 
procedures may be medically necessary to save the woman's life.
  This is an agonizing decision that a woman should make with her 
doctor, her family, or whomever, but not her congressional 
Representatives. We have seen what happens when politicians interfere 
in these deeply personal medical decisions and tie doctors' hands.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. LEE. Let me just say that the AMA has stated very clearly that 
this bill compromises a doctor's ability to provide medical treatment 
in the best interest of the patient.
  Members of Congress have no right to interfere in health care 
decisions of women. This is a private matter. And the last time I 
looked, I thought we do have a right to privacy in this country.
  So we have got to continue to fight against these attacks on women's 
health, on our constitutional rights, and on the right to privacy. I 
hope you vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on this bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts knows very well that the number of 
closed rules last Congress was a procedural effect of Republicans' 
efforts to reopen the government. America tires of this debate. Let's 
return to real issues with an impact on Americans' lives.
  Mr. Speaker, we go to extraordinary lengths in this country to save 
the lives of born human beings because we value life so much. However, 
there are many who do not hold the unborn in the same esteem, and that 
is tragic for the more than 1 million unborn babies who lose their 
lives every year. There is nothing more important than protecting 
voiceless unborn children and their families from the travesty of 
abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Huelskamp).
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, over these next 2 days, you will hear many of my 
colleagues rise in support of H.R. 36, as well they should. This bill 
protects pain-capable, pre-born children from being subjected to 
violent, dismembering abortions, also known as D&E abortions.
  One former abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino, testified in May 2013 
before the House Judiciary Committee and described the procedure by 
saying:

       A second-trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure. 
     Picture yourself reaching in with a Sopher clamp and grasping 
     anything you can. Once you have grasped something inside, 
     squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard--really 
     hard.

  This is from a former abortionist describing the procedure:

       You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg 
     about 6 inches long. Reach in again and again with that clamp 
     and tear out the spine, intestines, heart, and lungs.

  How disgusting. How repugnant. How wrong. Any nation, any party, any 
person that claims to respect human rights and accepts basic science 
must reject this pain-filled act of barbarism.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and, most 
important, in supporting H.R. 36.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to 
the underlying bill. This bill is just as unconstitutional as it was 
when it was introduced in the last Congress. It poses just as serious a 
risk to the health and civil liberties of American women. And this time 
around, it comes with an additional slap in the face to women because, 
if this rule passes, the bill will come to a vote on the 42nd 
anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.
  By attempting to outlaw almost all abortions after 20 weeks of 
pregnancy, this bill would clearly violate the constitutional 
principles the Court laid down in that decision a generation ago. Women 
must be allowed to decide their health care decisions. They need to do 
it in consultation with their doctors, with their families, and with 
their clergy and not have those decisions made for them by Washington 
politicians.
  The Republican majority always claims to be against government 
overreach and for science. Well, they should take a look at the 
legislation they bring to the floor. This bill would extend the Federal 
Government's reach all the way into the doctor's office. And it denies 
medical science. It threatens providers with jail for performing a 
procedure that is constitutionally protected and often medically 
necessary. It places obstacles in the way of rape victims who seek 
help. It would put thousands of women at risk.
  In short, this is another Republican ideological assault on women. We 
should reject it wholeheartedly. Our priority should be to help 
American workers with jobs, with increased wages--including women--and 
not turning the clock back to the 1950s with this kind of 
unconstitutional posturing.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying 
bill and truly vote for women in the United States today.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to respond to the charge that this 
legislation is unconstitutional. In 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the 
Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act as an appropriate use of 
Congress' powers under

[[Page 845]]

the Commerce Clause. This legislation follows that act's model by 
asserting Congress' authority to extend protection to pain-capable 
unborn children under the Commerce, Equal Protection, Due Process, and 
Enforcement Clauses of the 14th Amendment.
  It is sad that opponents of this legislation are attempting to use 
the Constitution as a roadblock to prevent lifesaving legislation, but 
the Supreme Court's position is clear.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, a great shadow looms over America, the home of the 
brave.
  More than 18,000 very late-term abortions are occurring in America 
every year, placing the mothers at exponentially greater risk and 
subjecting their pain-capable babies to torture and death without 
anesthesia. It is the greatest human rights atrocity in the United 
States today.
  Almost every other major civilized nation on Earth protects pain-
capable babies at this age, and every credible poll of the American 
people shows that they are overwhelmingly in favor of protecting them. 
And yet we have given these little babies less legal protection from 
unnecessary painful cruelty than the protection we have given farm 
animals under the Federal Humane Slaughter Act.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that today the winds of 
change have begun to blow and the tide of blindness and blood is 
finally turning in America because today we take up the Pain-Capable 
Unborn Child Protection Act in this Chamber.
  It is not perfect, Mr. Speaker. Each one of us would have written it 
a little differently if we could have done so. However, no matter how 
it is shouted down or what distortions, deceptive what-ifs, 
distractions, diversions, gotchas, twisting of words, changing the 
subject, or blatant falsehoods the abortion industry hurls at this bill 
and its supporters, it is a deeply sincere effort, beginning at the 
sixth month of pregnancy, to protect both mothers and their pain-
capable babies from the atrocity of late-term abortion on demand, and, 
ultimately, it is one all humane Americans can support if they truly 
understand it for themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are doing to these babies is real--and we all 
know it--and it is time to change and protect them.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), a champion for women's 
rights.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Instead of prioritizing the needs of 
women and families, we are once again discussing a bill that attacks 
women's rights.
  When I ask women in my district what they need, they talk about not 
being able to find quality, affordable child care. But here in Congress 
we are talking about a bill that tells women they don't have a right to 
plan their own family.
  Women in my district talk about making sure they receive equal pay 
for equal work. What are we talking about? A bill that tells women that 
politicians are better able to make their health decisions than they 
are.
  Women in my district talk about making sure victims and survivors of 
domestic violence have the resources they need to build a better life. 
But we are talking about a bill that tells women that if they become 
pregnant because they were raped, they better have a police report to 
prove it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. American women pay taxes, raise their 
families, contribute to our economy, and are over half of the 
electorate. Yet rather than helping these women succeed and grow our 
economy, we give them this bill that forces backward ideological 
beliefs into women's private medical decisions.
  I urge my colleagues to get back to work for women and families of 
this country and reject this dangerous bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is disappointing to hear my colleagues criticize this legislation 
in this way. We consider many weighty issues in this body with great 
implications for our future, but few of those issues command our 
attention as much as those that impact children, as this legislation 
does. This is right and appropriate.
  I fear for both our future and our present if we continue to tolerate 
the death of innocent children in the womb. Every life matters. It is 
my hope that a culture of life will take hold and all children will be 
protected in law in the near future, but today we have an opportunity 
to come together and find consensus that nearly fully developed, viable 
children should be protected, particularly as individuals capable of 
experiencing great pain.
  The necessity of that protection is made even clearer when 
considering the type of abortion these growing children are subjected 
to.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that the American people understand 
exactly what happens when they hear the word ``abortion.'' According to 
Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America, babies 
aborted at 14 weeks or later are often subjected to dismemberment 
abortions, which are incredibly gruesome and painful.
  What follows is heart-wrenching to describe, Mr. Speaker, but we must 
face the truth of what we are currently permitting. As if in a horror 
movie, the abortionist begins by suctioning out the amniotic fluid, 
then rips the limbs from the infant's body with a steel tool and 
finishes by crushing the skull of the infant he has dismembered.
  Take a moment to consider that. This is the most common abortion 
performed in the second trimester, not a rare tragedy.
  As a Nation, we rightfully give the safety of our children the 
highest importance. In spite of that, we continue to allow these 
horrific procedures that an overwhelming majority of nations in the 
world have sworn off. As I mentioned before, only seven nations allow 
elective abortions after 20 weeks' gestation.

                              {time}  1315

  How can America continue to be one of them? We must leave this 
practice behind.
  That is why I am a cosponsor of the underlying legislation to 
prohibit elective abortions in the United States past 20 weeks. The 
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a commonsense reform to our 
American principles of protecting life as the most fundamental 
constitutional right.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership and for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. After all the talk by 
our Republican friends about focusing their efforts on jobs and growing 
the economy, so far their rhetoric does not match their record.
  Last week, we took up a pipeline bill that, according to the State 
Department, would only create 34 jobs, and the bill that we have on the 
pipeline today probably won't create one single job, but what it will 
do, it will make it easier to damage the environment.
  The majority has also introduced six antichoice bills in the past 7 
days, and what all these bills have in common is that they will not 
create one single American job.
  Instead of a jobs agenda, the majority seems bound and determined to 
attack women's rights, to take away a woman's constitutional right to 
make for herself the most private and personal and intimate decisions.
  Now, we are taking up this bill, H.R. 36, which is based on the 
insulting belief that women are incapable and unprepared to make 
decisions about their own bodies and their own health care.
  Forty-two years ago this week, the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, 
made

[[Page 846]]

it clear that a woman has a constitutional right to decide for herself 
these private issues concerning her own health and well-being.
  This is not only insulting to the women of this country, it is just 
another pointless exercise in political posturing. It will never become 
law. It is a waste of Congress' time. What we should be doing instead 
is focusing on any idea or measure that can help create greater 
economic opportunity for all Americans.
  The President pointed out last night that our economy is on the rise. 
Under his leadership, we are experiencing the strongest private sector 
job growth we have had in 17 years, over 11 million new jobs.
  Let's not squander this opportunity. Let's work together to create 
real jobs, not political posturing for the American people.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Thankfully, the American people recognize that we are speaking about 
protecting vulnerable lives here. A March 2013 poll conducted by The 
Polling Company found that 64 percent of the public supports a law like 
the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibiting an abortion 
after 20 weeks, when an unborn baby can feel pain, unless the life of 
the mother is in danger.
  Supporters include 47 percent of those who identified themselves as 
``pro-choice'' in the poll. The poll also found that 63 percent of 
women believe that abortion should not be permitted after the point 
where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel 
pain. That finding was not an unusual outlier. It is representative of 
the true beliefs of the American people.
  According to a 2013 Gallup Poll, 64 percent of Americans support 
prohibiting second trimester abortions, and 80 percent support 
prohibiting third trimester abortions. Even The Huffington Post found 
in 2013 that 59 percent of Americans support limiting abortions after 
20 weeks.
  Let no one believe that our concern is only for the child. A study in 
the Obstetrics and Gynecology journal found that a woman seeking an 
abortion after 20 weeks' gestation is 35 times more likely to die from 
an abortion than she would have been from an abortion in the first 
trimester. At 21 weeks or more, she is 91 times more likely to die. 
Abortion is a danger to both lives, the mother and the child.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress cannot sit idly by while this grotesque and 
brutal procedure, which rips the tiny baby apart, limb from limb in the 
womb, and threatens the life of the mother, is performed in our 
country. This is why it is necessary for Congress to pass H.R. 36 and 
protect the lives of these unborn children from excruciating pain.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), somebody who believes in 
protecting women's rights.
  Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is that pain is a subterfuge. This bill is not 
about pain to the fetus. This bill is about outlawing abortion and 
repealing Roe v. Wade.
  The other side knows that the Supreme Court has set out in Roe v. 
Wade the conditions of viability, and viability is 22-24 weeks. Well, 
they couldn't get past that in the Court, they knew they couldn't, so 
they created this new class of when the baby, the child, can feel pain.
  They found a doctor that said he assumes they can feel pain, and they 
base their whole premise on that, an argument to try to repeal Roe v. 
Wade and to not give the women of this country the opportunity to 
exercise choice on their own lives and when they produce children.
  This has been the law in this country since 1973. I consider it the 
right law. I was in law school when the Supreme Court brought down Roe 
v. Wade. It was progress, and we continue to march forward, but the 
other side wants to stop progress. If they could outlaw all abortions, 
they would do it, and this is the first step toward doing it.
  They don't provide for the life of the mother in the bill. They don't 
provide for exceptions for rape and incest, and they didn't allow any 
amendments because they knew if they had amendments they would carry, 
and the full rape and incest exceptions which are in the law today 
would be put on this bill, and that would be difficult for them to 
swallow.
  This is a sham on pain. This is an attempt to take women's rights 
away and to repeal Roe v. Wade. I would ask that when the bill comes up 
that we vote ``no'' and vote women first and progress.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time at this time 
until the gentleman from Massachusetts is ready to close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Sadly, we have seen all too well how money has polluted our politics 
and is undermining our democracy, so I am going to urge people to vote 
against the previous question.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to allow for consideration of a sensible constitutional amendment, 
H.J. Res. 22, a measure that I have sponsored with my friends, Ted 
Deutch of Florida, Donna Edwards of Maryland, and John Sarbanes of 
Maryland, to overturn these decisions and make clear that Congress and 
States have the authority to regulate and set reasonable limits on the 
raising and spending of money to influence elections.
  To discuss this proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts, a 
leader in the fight to get money out of politics.
  Last night, in his State of the Union Address, President Obama called 
on Republicans and Democrats in Congress to embrace a better politics 
where we spend less time fundraising and spewing sound bites and more 
time debating issues in good faith to find common ground.
  A better politics, that is something all Americans want to see, and 
there is no better way to restore their faith in Congress than by 
getting Big Money out of politics.
  Today, my friends, is the 5-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's 
5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which granted corporations and 
megamillionaires a First Amendment right to buy unlimited influence in 
our elections. The results of Citizens United has been elections 
dominated by super-PACs and unaccountable outside groups, backed by a 
small group of the wealthiest Americans.
  Indeed, during the 2012 Presidential election cycle, 93 percent of 
super-PAC funding came from just over 3,000 donors, amounting to less 
than .01 percent of the American population; likewise, the 2014 midterm 
election cycle was the most expensive in history, with recordbreaking 
spending by outside groups.
  That is why, today, I ask the majority to join me and more than 80 of 
my colleagues in support of H.J. Res. 22, the Democracy for All 
amendment. This amendment will restore what the Supreme Court took away 
in Citizens United: the right of Congress and the States to pass laws 
limiting the influence of Big Money in our elections.
  Seniors on Social Security don't have millions to funnel into super-
PACs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DEUTCH. And low-income children are not among the wealthy donors 
who hit the limits struck down in last year's McCutcheon ruling.
  The sad truth is that, for most Americans, their influence in 
Washington has shrunk each time the Supreme Court has invited more 
money into our elections and allowed special interests to set the 
agenda.
  Let's build a better politics by bringing H.J. Res. 22, the Democracy 
for All amendment, up for a vote today. Together, we can ensure that 
every American's voice, once again, is heard in America's democracy.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 847]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on ordering the previous question, 
so that we can consider the constitutional amendment, the Democracy for 
All amendment, that would rein in the excesses that have been unleashed 
by Big Money on our political system. That occurred 5 years ago in the 
Citizens United decision.
  We have an opportunity, acting on behalf of the millions of Americans 
who feel their voices are drowned out, to push back on the influence of 
Big Money in this town and on this Chamber.
  It seems, Mr. Speaker, that every week we get another example of how 
Big Money is influencing policy here in Washington. Last week, it was 
the influence of Wall Street leaning on the institution to pass 
legislation that would get them out from reasonable regulation. This 
week, it is the energy industry leaning on the institution with respect 
to this Keystone bill that we are going to see--example after example 
of how Big Money has undue influence here in Washington.
  It is time that we fought on behalf of the American people and made 
sure that their voices are the ones being heard, not the voice and the 
megaphone of Big Money.
  Let's vote against ordering the previous question. Let's consider the 
amendment to the Constitution that would allow us to push back on the 
undue influence of Big Money here in Washington.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to whether the gentleman 
from Massachusetts is prepared to close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. FOXX. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text 
of the amendment that I will offer if we defeat the previous question 
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 myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just recap for my colleagues here. First of all, vote ``no'' 
on this rule. This continues a trend that has nothing but contempt for 
regular order. These bills had no hearings in this Congress. There was 
no markup, and now, they are brought to the floor with no amendments--
two closed rules.
  Notwithstanding the pledge of the Speaker for a more open and 
transparent process, people who have other ideas on ways to improve or 
change these bills are denied that opportunity.
  I would say, with all due respect to my colleague from North 
Carolina, we can't use the excuse that we have got to keep the 
government running. We are in the beginning of the session. We are not 
doing much of anything. Clearly, the bills that we are debating in 
their current form are going to be vetoed anyway.

                              {time}  1330

  Secondly, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule 
because of the bills that are being brought up: this bill that is 
clearly an attack on women's health and reproductive rights, which does 
not belong on this floor; and the other bill is a bill that basically 
allows there to be a process for pipelines to be approved without 
necessarily going through all the proper oversight.
  And I am going to urge Members to vote against the previous question 
so we can bring up this bill that I talked about earlier on campaign 
finance reform.
  Look, the legislative agenda in this Congress is about rewarding the 
highest donors. I think to any objective observer, when you see what is 
coming on the floor, including this pipeline bill which is not in the 
interest of the American people, we are not out there trying to protect 
their safety and well-being. It is a big kiss to the energy industry. 
And I would argue that the reason why bills like that--or some of the 
tax bills that are brought to this floor that reward big corporations 
and the wealthiest individuals--are brought to the floor is because 
those people who represent those wealthy interests have the most sway 
in this Congress. They are the biggest donors to political parties. 
They are the biggest donors to Members of Congress.
  And while that is happening every day here, average people who can't 
contribute tens of thousands of dollars to political parties, who can't 
contribute millions of dollars, are increasingly becoming marginalized. 
The issues that matter most to working people, those struggling in the 
working class, those struggling to get into the middle class, we don't 
even get a chance to debate those issues on the House floor.
  I will say to my Republican friends: I have had many conversations 
with you over the years about how you hate raising money as much as I 
hate raising money. Too much of our attention in this Congress, whether 
you are a Democrat or a Republican, is about raising money for the next 
election, and it is getting worse and worse every election cycle. It is 
time to do something about that. It is time to give Congress the 
authority to regulate or put a cap on how much campaigns cost. I mean, 
we are going to spend billions of dollars in the next Presidential 
election. It is obscene. With all the problems that we have in this 
country, we ought to be spending more time debating those problems and 
not worrying about raising money.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so that we can bring up this commonsense campaign finance 
proposal, and I also urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As I said at the opening of this debate, this rule will provide for 
consideration of H.R. 161, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform 
Act. That legislation, which passed the House on a bipartisan basis 
last Congress, will reduce red tape and ensure that Americans in all 
parts of the country will be able to benefit from the energy revolution 
that has occurred on our Nation's private lands.
  It is the coldest season of the year. It is my strong hope that we 
will be able to enact this legislation soon, to ensure that in winters 
to come residents of the northeast and other high-cost areas of the 
country are able to heat their homes affordably.
  Before we consider our budgets or the foolishness of red tape, 
though, we must return to our founding principles. We must remember 
that life is the most fundamental of all rights. It is sacred and God-
given.
  Even the President said in last night's speech: ``I want our actions 
to tell every child, in every neighborhood: Your life matters, and we 
are committed to improving your life chances, as committed as we are to 
working on behalf of our own kids.''
  But, Mr. Speaker, millions of babies have been robbed of that right 
in this, the freest country in the world. That is a tragedy beyond 
words and a betrayal of what we, as a nation, stand for.
  Before liberty, equality, free speech, freedom of conscience, the 
pursuit of happiness, and justice for all, there has to be life; and 
yet for millions of aborted infants, life is exactly what they have 
been denied. An affront to life for some is an affront to life for 
every one of us.
  One day, we hope it will be different. We hope life will cease to be 
valued on a sliding scale. We hope the era of elective abortions, 
ushered in by an unelected Court, will be closed and collectively 
deemed one of the darkest chapters in American history. But until that 
day, it remains a solemn duty to stand up for life.

[[Page 848]]

  Regardless of the length of this journey, we will continue to speak 
for those who cannot, and we will continue to pray to the One who can 
change the hearts of those in desperation and those in power who 
equally hold the lives of the innocent in their hands.
  May we, in love, defend the unborn; may we, in humility, confront 
this national sin; and may we mourn what abortion reveals about the 
conscience of our Nation. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for 
life by voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my frustration 
in the process by which this bill was brought to the floor and my 
disappointment that the process has yielded a bill that I cannot 
support.
  This bill did not go through regular order. The Judiciary Committee 
did not hold any hearings or markups on the bill. And now under a 
Closed Rule, Members do not have the opportunity to offer amendments, 
let alone debate the merits of specific sections they wish to change.
  I submitted an amendment to H.R. 36 that would have extended the 
exception for all incest victims. Under a Closed Rule, this amendment 
was rejected.
  Incest victims are victims regardless of their age. What some people 
call ``consensual incest'' often begins as child sexual abuse. Even if 
the relationship continues into adulthood, there is still a perpetrator 
and still a victim. In addition, it is hugely unfair to require an 
incest victim to report a relative to the police.
  In the future, should the House again consider legislation railing to 
abortion, I urge my colleagues to bring the bill through regular order 
so that all Members can participate in the debate over this sensitive 
issue.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 38 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. 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 joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 22) proposing an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States relating to contributions 
     and expenditures intended to affect elections. The first 
     reading of the joint resolution shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the joint resolution 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the joint 
     resolution 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 joint 
     resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the 
     joint resolution are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the joint resolution for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the joint resolution to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution 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 joint 
     resolution, 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 joint resolution.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.J. Res. 22.
                                  ____


        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.''
       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. FOXX. 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 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 238, 
nays 182, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 38]

                               YEAS--238

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey

[[Page 849]]


     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--182

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Brady (TX)
     Carter (TX)
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Fincher
     Forbes
     Harris
     Hastings
     Hinojosa
     Hoyer
     Johnson, Sam
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter

                              {time}  1404

  Messrs. REED and SALMON changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238, 
noes 181, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 39]

                               AYES--238

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

                               NOES--181

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

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Brady (TX)
     Carter (TX)
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Fincher
     Forbes
     Harris
     Hastings
     Hinojosa
     Hoyer
     Johnson, Sam
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter
     Walters, Mimi


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee) (during the vote). 
There are 2 minutes remaining.

[[Page 850]]



                              {time}  1413

  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.

                          ____________________