{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2018-01-18-pt1-PgH494-2", "2018-01-18", 115, 2, null, null, "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", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "ALLOTHER", "H494", "H503", "[{\"name\": \"Liz Cheney\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James P. McGovern\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Marsha Blackburn\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Louise McIntosh Slaughter\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Christopher H. Smith\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Diana DeGette\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Alexander X. Mooney\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"A. Donald McEachin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Doug Lamborn\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Lois Frankel\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Doug LaMalfa\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Steve King\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mike Johnson\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sheila Jackson Lee\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Dan Newhouse\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"195\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"694\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"694\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"694\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4712\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4712\"}, {\"congress\": \"115\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"4820\"}]", "164 Cong. Rec. H494", "Congressional Record, Volume 164 Issue 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]\n[House]\n[Pages H494-H503]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\nPROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4712, BORN-ALIVE ABORTION SURVIVORS\n PROTECTION ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM\n               JANUARY 22, 2018, THROUGH JANUARY 26, 2018\n\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I\ncall up House Resolution 694 and ask for its immediate consideration.\n  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:\n\n                              H. Res. 694\n\n       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be\n     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4712) to\n     amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care\n     practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of\n     care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or\n     attempted abortion. All points of order against consideration\n     of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.\n     All points of order against provisions in the bill are\n     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered\n     on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage\n     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate\n     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking\n     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2)\n     one motion to recommit.\n       Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from\n     January 22, 2018, through January 26, 2018--\n        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day\n     shall be considered as approved; and\n       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned\n     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,\n     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by\n     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.\n       Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the\n     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed\n     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)\n     of rule I.\n\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized\nfor 1 hour.\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the\ncustomary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.\nMcGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.\nDuring consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the\npurpose of debate only.\n\n                              {time}  1230\n\n                             General Leave\n\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members\nhave 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentlewoman from Wyoming?\n  There was no objection.\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 694, which\nprovides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 4712, the Born-Alive\nAbortion Survivors Protection Act. This important bill ensures medical\ncare and legal protection for abortion survivors, protects their\nmothers from prosecution, and holds abortion providers accountable.\n  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not duplicative as some have suggested. It\nsimply augments current law: the Born-Alive Infants Act and the Partial\nBirth Abortion Ban Act, which the House passed in 2002 and 2003,\nrespectively, with very strong bipartisan support.\n  Current law includes, in the Federal definition of a person, infants\nwho are born alive no matter the method of birth or the stage of their\ndevelopment. Current law, Mr. Speaker, also provides criminal penalties\nfor physicians who provide partial-birth abortions.\n  What current law does not provide, however, is enforceable protection\nfor those children who are born alive after a failed abortion attempt\nand denied care, nor does it provide criminal penalties, Mr. Speaker,\nfor those who perform or knowingly ignore these actions.\n  Mr. Speaker, there are horrific stories of children born alive during\nabortions and are either gruesomely left for dead or deliberately\nkilled once born. Even more, the abortion industry is fully aware of\nthe risk of a child being born alive during an abortion, especially if\nthe abortion occurs once the child is gestationally 18 to 20 weeks old\nor more, the age at which we know a child is able to survive if given\nthe proper neonatal care.\n  Take the story, Mr. Speaker, of Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor\nwho testified before the House Judiciary Committee in 2015. She said:\n``Instead of dying, after 18 hours of being burned in my mother's womb,\nI was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in Los Angeles on April 6,\n1977. My medical records state: `Born alive during saline abortion' at\n6 a.m.\n  ``Thankfully, the abortionist was not at work yet. Had he been there,\nhe would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation, or leaving\nme there to die. Instead, a nurse called an ambulance, and I was rushed\nto a hospital. Doctors did not expect me to live.\n  ``I did. I was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy, which was caused\nby a lack of oxygen to my brain while I was surviving the abortion. I\nwas never supposed to hold my head up or walk. I do.''\n  She concluded: ``If abortion is about women's rights, then what were\nmine?''\n  Some abortion providers, Mr. Speaker, are unwilling to respect the\nBorn-Alive Infants Protection Act, such as Priscilla Smith, who\ntestified at a House Judiciary Committee hearing in 2015, saying that\nshe didn't believe it would be a violation of the previous Born-Alive\nInfants Protection Act if a baby were killed outside the womb as long\nas the baby wasn't ``viable.''\n  Ms. Smith went on to assert some fetuses are never viable. She made\nthese claims notwithstanding the fact, Mr. Speaker, that viability is\nnot a factor, even under existing law, in determining whether an infant\ndeserves protection under the law. The law protects infants born alive\nat any stage of development; and, therefore these abortion survivors\nare entitled to the same degree of care that would be received by any\nother babies of their age.\n  The bill we are debating today, Mr. Speaker, would impose enforceable\ncriminal penalties for clinics that do not treat survivors with proper\nmedical care. There is, sadly, evidence that clinics fail to provide\nthis care.\n  Deborah Edge, a former abortion clinic employee, wrote an op-ed about\nher experience. She said: ``I was the doctor's right-hand person in the\noperating room, and just like those employees of Dr. Gosnell''--who we\nknow was\n\n[[Page H495]]\n\none of the most horrific abortionists to date, guilty of first degree\nmurder in the cases of at least three babies--``I saw the abortionist\npuncture the soft spot in the baby's head or snip its neck if it was\ndelivered alive.''\n  The abortion providers, Mr. Speaker, who neglect to provide\nappropriate professional care to these babies, or worse, who kill them\nonce they are born, must be held accountable.\n  Finally, I believe it is very important to note, to counter some of\nthe things you will hear from the other side of the aisle, that this\nbill provides crucial protections for women. This bill protects women\nwho seek abortions by prohibiting them from being prosecuted under the\nlaw.\n  H.R. 4712 also empowers women. It allows them to sue abortionists who\ndon't provide protection for aborted babies who are born alive. This is\nvery important, Mr. Speaker. Take the case of a woman named Angela who\nwent to a clinic in Orlando, Florida, when she was 23 weeks pregnant.\n  Angela received pills to begin contractions to induce an abortion.\nAfter an hour of labor, Mr. Speaker, Angela delivered her baby, alive,\ninto a toilet. Angela had her friend call 911 to request help to save\nher baby, but when the paramedics arrived on the scene, clinic staff\nreportedly turned them away. The fire department's incident report said\nthey had no contact with the patient.\n  After the death of her son, Rowan, Angela wrote the following: ``The\nvery moment I saw my son was alive, nothing else in the whole world\nmattered but Rowan's safety . . . Only one thing mattered to me:\ngetting Rowan help. I begged repeatedly.''\n  Tragically, the abortion clinic not only refused but also,\napparently, sabotaged Angela's call for help.\n  The bill that we are debating today, Mr. Speaker, would give women\nlike Angela the ability to sue abortionists who do not comply with the\nlaw's requirements to give medical attention to children born alive\nlike baby Rowan.\n  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule to allow\nconsideration of H.R. 4712, and I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from\nWyoming (Ms. Cheney) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself\nsuch time as I may consume.\n  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his\nremarks.)\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today we will consider the 61st closed\nrule of the Congress, part of a disturbing and familiar pattern.\nRepublicans are running this House with no regular order, no hearings\non legislation, and one closed rule after another. Speaker Ryan and\nHouse Republicans recently set a record as presiding over the most\nclosed session of Congress in history, and now they are adding to it.\n  With no transparency and their continued effort to silence any debate\nor dissent, this House Chamber feels more like the Russian house rather\nthan the people's House. Now, I know Donald Trump is enthralled with\nauthoritarian rulers and authoritarian rule, but that doesn't mean you\nguys have to follow suit.\n  Today's rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 4712, yet another\npartisan and extreme Republican bill that is completely unnecessary and\naimed solely at pleasing the majority's rightwing base. The simple\ntruth is that this bill is filled with inflammatory language\nintentionally designed to politicize women's access to healthcare. It\nis clearly about nothing more than advancing an agenda to take away\naccess to safe and legal abortion.\n  With this bill, House Republicans are meddling in the decisions that\nshould be left up to doctors and patients. That is not our job. What we\nare doing today is not about serious legislating. If it were, the\nmajority would have gone through regular order. This bill is nothing\nmore than a very cynical effort to give Republican Members of Congress\nsomething to point to when they join the anti-choice march in\nWashington this week. Republicans are recklessly playing politics with\nwomen's health, and they should be ashamed.\n  My Republican colleagues claim that this bill is just a reinstatement\nof the current born-alive law. First, if that were true, then this bill\nwould be redundant and unnecessary; and, second, Democrats would\nsupport it. When the original law came to the House floor in 2002, it\nwas passed by a voice vote. We all agreed. But this bill is not a\nreinstatement.\n  This bill takes the current, functional law and adds a radical\ninclusion of criminal penalties for doctors if they violate the\nunreasonable requirements of this legislation.\n  Under current law, when a child is born alive, including during an\nabortion procedure, the healthcare provider is required to care for\nthis newborn and apply a standard level of care given to any and every\nchild. However, this bill takes the law a step further and requires\nthat the doctor immediately transport this child to a hospital, without\nexception, whether it is safe for the child or not, or face criminal\npunishment--up to 5 years in jail.\n  This bill could create a chilling effect and limit access to safe,\nlegal abortion for women since physicians may fear prosecution.\nPatients need and deserve access to compassionate and appropriate\nmedical care. This bill is, quite frankly, unconscionable.\n  Mr. Speaker, there are times when immediately transporting a newborn\nto a hospital that may be miles or even hours away may result in grave\nharm to that infant. Such decisions must be left to the professional\njudgment of doctors and clinicians.\n  Doctors and clinicians oppose this law because it prevents them from\ngiving the best care to their patients. The American College of\nObstetricians and Gynecologists strongly oppose this legislation,\ncalling it a ``gross interference in the practice of medicine.''\n  Current law is working and should not be radically changed for a\npartisan talking point. Right now there are a number of truly critical\nissues that we ought to be considering on this floor, not a sound bite\nfor an anti-choice rally coming up in the next couple of days.\n  A clear majority of Americans, I should point out to my colleagues,\nseven out of ten, say they believe a woman should have the right to a\nsafe, legal abortion according to a Quinnipiac University poll. By\nstark contrast, fewer than three in ten Americans--that is 29 percent--\napprove of the job Republicans are doing in Congress. Maybe the\nmajority ought to get the hint. People don't like what you are doing.\nThis should be a wake-up call to Republicans to end their partisan\ncrusades and start doing their jobs. It is time to focus on the real\npressing issues we face.\n  The Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, which nearly 2 million\nkids and their families rely on, has been in limbo for months as States\nare beginning to run out of money. Now Republicans are pushing a\ncontinuing resolution that fails to permanently extend CHIP.\nPermanently extending CHIP would not only give these kids and their\nfamilies the certainty they need when it comes to their healthcare, but\nthe nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that it would also\nsave $6 billion. I thought the majority were the party of fiscal\nresponsibility. Do the right thing and save $6 billion. But Republicans\nwould rather kick the can down the road once again.\n  The authorizations for Community Health Center funds and the\nMaternal, Infant, and Childhood Home Visitation programs will remain\nexpired. That is not even included in this partisan CR that we are\ngoing to see a little bit later today.\n  Each and every day, 122 DREAMers are losing their protected status\nand ability to work in this country, and my Republican friends don't\nseem at all bothered by that.\n  People who are first responders, saving lives, people who serve in\nour military and people who work in our companies who are such great\nmembers of our community are treated like this in such a rotten way,\nand yet more inaction.\n  The administration just stripped 200,000 Salvadorans legally residing\nin the United States of their protected status, people who are obeying\nour laws and who are working here legally.\n\n                              {time}  1245\n\n  They did this while admonishing Congress to provide these same people\nwith an enduring lawful immigration status; and yet, we have a Congress\nthat is so dysfunctional, they can't even agree on what to have for\nlunch,\n\n[[Page H496]]\n\nnever mind move anything forward that is positive with regard to\nprotecting these important members of our community.\n  The debt limit needs to be raised to ensure the U.S. is able to pay\nits bills. Communities are urgently in need of resources to fight the\nopioid epidemic that is killing 91 Americans a day.\n  They are tired of your press releases. They want the funding to be\nable to respond to the crisis in their communities; yet, nothing in\nthis CR, no urgency here in Congress.\n  More needs to be done to help repair damage left by devastating\nwildfires and hurricanes that have ravaged this country. I just came\nback from a trip to Puerto Rico. The place is still in great disrepair,\nand our initial response to that hurricane was disgraceful. We have a\nspecial obligation to these people, our fellow citizens, to better\nrespond; yet, there is no urgency here.\n  Most importantly, where is the budget agreement that sets the caps\nfor fiscal year 2018? House and Senate appropriators can't even begin\nnegotiations on an omnibus funding bill until they know the top-line\nnumbers.\n  That means that this will not be the last short-term continuing\nresolution that we see before this House. Until there is an agreement\non the budget caps, we will continue to see the Republican majority\nkeep kicking the can down the road. We will see CR No. 5 in mid-\nFebruary and maybe CR No. 6 shortly thereafter.\n  When will the Republicans finally stop negotiating with themselves\nand instead reach out to Democrats and work in a bipartisan way and\nactually get the job done that we were sent here to do by our\nconstituents?\n  We are just hours away from another Republican shutdown, and instead\nof working on a bipartisan agreement, we are here discussing this\ninflammatory bill that will impose criminal penalties on doctors and\nallow Congress to intrude on medical care decisions.\n  When are we going to put the radical rhetoric aside and do our jobs\nand tackle the real issues that the Americans sent us here to tackle?\n  Here is kind of the icing on the cake. This government shutdown is\nlooming. We are going to run out of money on Friday. All hell is going\nto break loose if we can't come to some sort of agreement. You would\nthink we would be working together to get this done as quickly as\npossible.\n  But then we are told we are going to consider the continuing\nresolution rule after this and then we are going to debate it, but we\nare not going to vote on it until later night, after 7, maybe even\nlater.\n  Why, people might ask, are we delaying action on a bill that decides\nwhether we keep the government open?\n  Oh, we just found out President Trump is doing a political rally with\nRepublican Members of Congress in Pennsylvania.\n  So the political rally is more important than the well-being of the\nAmerican people?\n  What are you guys thinking?\n  Shame on you. This is a moment of urgency and instead of doing\npolitical sound bite legislation and instead of doing political rallies\nin Pennsylvania for an election that doesn't happen until March,\nMembers of Congress ought to be here, working to keep the government\nrunning, to come to some sort of accommodation on the DREAMers, to make\nsure community health centers are funded, to make sure our veterans get\nthe funding and the healthcare they need.\n  What you are doing is atrocious. If the American people could sue you\nfor political malpractice, you would be in deep trouble.\n  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, to oppose this bill that\nwould severely undermine women's access to essential services like\nabortion, and I urge my colleagues to cancel the political rally and\nget back to work.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks\nto the Chair and not engage in personalities toward the President.\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague on the other side of the\naisle, Mr. McGovern. We have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to spend a\nnumber of hours together up in the Rules Committee. It is always great\nto manage debates with Mr. McGovern on the other side of the aisle\nbecause you are left with, number one, no doubt about where he stands.\nBut number two, a target-rich environment as well, Mr. Speaker.\n  I would just say a couple of things. First of all, casting aspersions\non this bill when my colleagues say this bill is nothing more than a\npolitical stunt or a political sound bite or a partisan talking point,\nI can't imagine, Mr. Speaker, that they really believe that describing\nlegislation--they may disagree with the legislation--but for us to have\nto be on the floor of this body talking about babies who are born alive\nand who are killed at the hands of abortionists is far more than a\npolitical sound bite.\n  I think Mr. McGovern, my colleague, was saying that we ought to be\nashamed of ourselves. I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that is rhetoric\nthat we don't need and rhetoric that is absolutely inaccurate in terms\nof describing the important efforts that we have underway here.\n\n  I also would hope, Mr. Speaker, that our colleagues in the other\nbody, in particular, the Democrats in the other body--Mr. Schumer and\nthe others over there--were watching Mr. McGovern just now. If the\nissue really is, Let's get to work and let's get a deal done, that deal\nis in their hands.\n  Mr. McGovern well knows that you have got to get 60 votes in the\nUnited States Senate to get a deal. We are in the position today where,\nof the long list of items Mr. McGovern mentioned, I would say he failed\nto mention the single most important obligation we have, which is to\nensure that we get resources to our military.\n  The reality of the situation we are facing today, at a moment when\nour Nation faces grave threats, at a moment where we are having\nservicemen and -women killed in training accidents--more killed in\ntraining accidents in the last year than were killed in combat in the\nlast year--we in this body have failed to do our duty.\n  The reality of this, for people to understand, is that the Democrats\nin the United States Senate are holding funding for defense hostage\nbecause they want amnesty for illegal immigrants. That, Mr. Speaker, is\nsomething that I think is absolutely indefensible.\n  So I hope that Mr. McGovern's colleagues in the Senate were watching\nhim, were listening to the concern he has about the sense of urgency\nwith moving forward.\n  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we could have a deal today, if the Democrats\nwould stop holding spending hostage, stop holding the resources our\nmilitary needs hostage in order to grant amnesty for illegal\nimmigrants.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee\n(Mrs. Blackburn), my friend and colleague and the sponsor of this bill.\n  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you it is an honor to come\nto the floor and talk about one of these protected rights: life.\n  When we talk about our founding documents and life, liberty, and the\npursuit of happiness, it is life that we are protecting.\n  I find it unfortunate that we have some who would say this is a\nradical talking point. I would offer that the right to life is a\nfundamental right, not a talking point.\n  Now, what brings us to this point in time?\n  We all remember the stories of Kermit Gosnell, the abortionist, the\nhouse of horrors, and what happened there, where individuals--moms--\nlost their lives, where one of the workers in that clinic estimated\nthat there had been as many as 100 babies through the years that had\nsurvived an abortion and had been killed.\n  What we are seeking to do is expand these protections. Today, what we\nare doing with H.R. 4712 is to build on that legislation from 2002.\nThis body had passed that legislation to protect infants that were born\nalive and had survived abortions.\n  This bill before us today is going to do four very important things.\n  First, it requires appropriate care be given to any child who is born\nalive following a failed abortion. It requires any health providers\npresent to administer the same life-preserving care that would be given\nto babies born under any other circumstances and to ensure\n\n[[Page H497]]\n\nthat the child is transported immediately to a hospital.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the\ngentlewoman from Tennessee.\n  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Second, the bill establishes criminal penalties that\nproviders will face if they violate providing that care.\n  Third, it establishes a civil right of action to enforce the law.\n  Finally, the bill provides crucial protections that will prevent\nmothers of these babies from being subject to criminal prosecution and\npenalties.\n  Mr. Speaker, these are the right steps to protect the most vulnerable\namong us. I encourage support for the bill.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from Wyoming that I will\npoint out a little statistic that she might be interested in. That is,\nI think never in history has the government been shut down when the\nsame party controls the House, the Senate, and the White House, like\nthe Republicans do right now. The Republicans have a 23-seat majority,\nI think, in the House right now. You control the agenda.\n  If the gentlewoman or her leadership were interested in working with\nDemocrats, here is a little advice: maybe you ought to have asked us to\nthe table. Maybe you should consult with us. Maybe you should ask us\nwhat we think is important. Maybe you ought to understand that if you\nwant to get something done that is bipartisan, you have to act in a\nbipartisan way.\n  The reason why I am anxious to get this vote on the CR is because I\nthink the CR that has been proposed is wholly inadequate. It is not in\nthe best interest of our country.\n  But I want us to continue to negotiate it. Maybe the Republicans will\ncome back to the table and negotiate. That is why I feel so strongly\nthat my Republican friends ought not be going to political rallies in\nPennsylvania today with the President and they ought to be staying here\nto do the work to make sure we get a bipartisan agreement to keep the\ngovernment open.\n  I get it. You are losing seats all around the place. The popularity\nof the Republican Party has never been lower. You are all panicked. But\nthe election isn't until March. Donald Trump can take all of you on his\nluxurious plane to Pennsylvania at another time. But today, we ought to\nbe focused on the people's business. Next week, we are supposed to be\noff. So you have all the time in the world next week to be able to go\nwith Donald Trump on a political excursion.\n  When I think about what is at stake and we are delaying votes on a\ncontinuing resolution and on further negotiations because people are\nmore interested in the political rally in Pennsylvania, this takes my\nbreath away.\n\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to address their remarks\nto the Chair.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from\nNew York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules\nCommittee.\n  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.\n  Mr. Speaker, we are back to the House floor today to pass another\nbill, the real intent of which is to harm women and limit their\nconstitutionally protected healthcare they can receive. I need to\nrepeat that because most people I find do not understand that the\nConstitution of the United States, which we revere, protects a woman's\nright to choose.\n  To add insult to injury, this intrusive legislation is totally\nunnecessary. Killing an infant, or anybody else, has always been\nagainst the law.\n  To reiterate the point, a bipartisan law was passed in 2002 to\nreinforce that medical care should be given to any infant born alive.\nTo illustrate how unnecessary this bill is, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who is\nthe only example we have in America, is going to spend the rest of his\nlife in prison without any possibility of parole for three first-degree\nmurder convictions.\n  But H.R. 4712 goes much further than the current law. It legislates\nmedical standards of care and threatens the providers with civil and\ncriminal penalties.\n  The effects of this are best described by an OB/GYN from my district:\n  ``I have been a practicing OB/GYN for more than 35 years, and it is\nmy life's calling to care for women across their lifespan. Throughout\nmy career, I have cared for patients during their highest highs and\nlowest lows, from healthy pregnancies to devastating fetal anomalies,\nto cancer diagnoses. I take my role as their trusted physician very\nseriously, and take pride in providing compassionate and ethical care\nto each and every patient.\n  ``H.R. 4712 would take that ability away from me, inserting\npoliticians into the patient-physician relationship and the profoundly\npersonal healthcare decisions of my patients.\n  ``Recently, I had a patient with severe HELLP syndrome, a life-\nthreatening blood pressure condition during pregnancy for which the\nonly treatment is to deliver. This meant induction of her previable\nfetus to save her life.\n\n                              {time}  1300\n\n  ``As her condition deteriorated, and after consulting her family,\nspiritual leader, and several specialists, she decided to deliver''--\nshe should be able to consult whomever she pleases--``knowing that her\nextremely preterm infant would not survive. If enacted, H.R. 4712 would\ntake away this family's choice of providing comfort care for their\nbaby, put my patient's life at risk, and threaten me with criminal and\ncivil penalties for providing appropriate and empathetic care to my\npatients.''\n  H.R. 4712 is just the next bill in a long line of votes that we have\nhad here that would hurt women.\n  But Congress is just part of the current crusade against women. This\nadministration has done more than its share to ensure that 2017 saw an\nunprecedented amount of attacks against women and our ability to access\nhealthcare.\n  Just this morning--America, please don't lose the irony in this. Just\nthis morning, the administration announced a rule to allow providers,\nhospitals, nurses, and others to refuse patients needed healthcare\nbased solely on the religious or moral beliefs of the provider.\n  Is it just me who thinks that is in direct contradiction to this bill\nthey are trying to push off on us now? On the one hand, they are saying\neverything has to be treated, and, on the other hand, they are saying\nyou don't have to treat anybody if your personal or moral convictions\nprevent you from doing so. That is really dangerous, believe me. This\nis an unconscionable effort to blatantly ignore the needs and the best\ninterests of the patients.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the\ngentlewoman from New York.\n  Ms. SLAUGHTER. This silly rule will put individuals' lives and health\nin danger and will result in deaths, based on an undefined moral\nobjection. It doesn't even have to be explained that they have some\nidea that they would not be able to treat that person who may be\nbleeding to death before them.\n  Mr. Speaker, I am going to close again with the words from the OB/GYN\nfrom my district:\n  ``The purpose of this legislation is to scare and intimidate\nphysicians and punish them for providing abortion care, but the true\nimpact will be on the women and families who will be denied the highest\nquality medical treatment they deserve.\n  ``H.R. 4712 is a dangerous bill. I urge you to protect my patients'\naccess to care and reject this gross interference in the patient-\nphysician relationship.''\n  Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, the whole idea of this bill is a\npolitical issue. But the idea of what the administration did this\nmorning, to completely negate this bill that we are debating right now,\nis irony that is just too delicious to miss.\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New\nJersey (Mr. Smith), one of the strongest, most honorable and admirable\ndefenders of life in this body, my friend.\n  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for\nyielding.\n  Mr. Speaker, doctors, today, routinely diagnose and treat a myriad of\nillnesses and diseases suffered by societies' littlest patients--unborn\nbabies\n\n[[Page H498]]\n\nand newborns--significantly enhancing both the children's health and\nlongevity.\n  Abortionists, on the other hand, take a different approach. They\ndismember and chemically kill unborn children for profit. For decades,\nbabies have survived later term abortions. As far back as 37 years ago,\na Philadelphia Inquirer story called baby survival ``the dreaded\ncomplication.''\n  Dr. Willard Cates of the Center for Disease Control said live births\n``are little known because organized medicine, from fear of public\nclamor and legal action, treats them more as an embarrassment to be\nhushed up than a problem to be solved. It is like turning yourself in\nto the IRS for an audit. What is there to gain? The tendency is not to\nreport because there are only negative incentives.''\n  Of course, the tendency is not to report.\n  When an undercover investigator asked another abortion provider from\nPlanned Parenthood about the procedure for checking for signs of life\nin a baby born after an attempted abortion, the abortionist responded\nby saying: ``I mean, the key is, you need to pay attention to who is in\nthe room. . . . `'\n  Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell had a lot of people in the\nroom, but nobody was reporting, as he killed and snipped the spinal\ncords of hundreds of born babies to ensure that they didn't survive.\n  All is not well in the abortion clinics either, in terms of their own\npersonnel. The National Public Radio, NPR, did an incisive story\nfeaturing former Planned Parenthood Director Abby Huffman, who is now\nJohnson, who is now pro-life, and her outreach to clinical workers\nencouraging them to quit their jobs inside the abortion clinics.\n  Heard on ``All Things Considered,'' Annette Lancaster, a former\nmanager of Planned Parenthood in North Carolina, said her abortion work\nmade her feel ``dark and morbid.'' Annette said she was troubled by the\nway she and other workers referred to fetal remains. She said: ``I just\nnow started being able to use my deep freezer in my home by going\nthrough therapy, because we used to call the freezer the `nursery.'''\nThat is to say for the dead babies.\n  The National Abortion Federation, in their textbook for abortionists,\nsays:\n  ``Providers should consider the possibility of a live-born fetus,\nparticularly if fetal death is not induced prior to the procedure and\nthe gestational age is 18 to 20 weeks or more.''\n  ``Besides the emotional and ethical difficulties for patients, their\npartners, and staff, a delivery with signs of life may have legal\nimplications.''\n  The problem with existing law, Mr. Speaker, is enforcement--the lack\nof legal implications.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the\ngentleman from New Jersey.\n  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Marsha Blackburn's bill, the Born-Alive\nAbortion Survivors Protection Act, requires, under penalty of law, that\nappropriate healthcare to be given to any child who survives an\nattempted abortion, not looking the other way, as has been done for\ndecades--Gosnell probably being the most egregious example.\n  The law prescribes that:\n  ``Any healthcare practitioner present at the time the child is born\nshall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and\ndiligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably\ndiligent and conscientious healthcare practitioner would render to any\nother child born alive at the same gestational age; following the\nexercise of skill, care, and diligence . . . ensure that the child born\nalive is immediately transported to a hospital.''\n  The bill also establishes strong criminal penalties for practitioners\nwho violate this requirement; establishes a civil right of action for\nthe mother of the child, to enforce the law; and the mother of the\nchild born alive may not be prosecuted under this law.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, we are, again, at a very urgent moment here for our\ncountry. We have a lot to do, and we ought to be working in a\nbipartisan way to keep the government open. That ought to be\neverybody's priority. Quite frankly, we ought to be focused on that\nmore than on a bill that is a sound bite that is going nowhere.\n  In fact, this bill was so important to my Republican friends that it\nnever had a hearing or it never went through a markup. It just\nmiraculously appeared at the last minute in advance of this anti-choice\nrally coming up.\n  But with all that is going on right now, I mean, with the threat of a\nshutdown, I am looking at Donald Trump's tweet:\n  ``Will be going to Pennsylvania today in order to give my total\nsupport to Rick Saccone, running for Congress in a special election\n(March 13). Rick is a great guy.''\n  That is where the President's head is today. And he is taking a bunch\nof Republicans with him. Rather than negotiating a bipartisan deal that\nwill help keep the government running, that will help the DREAMers,\nthat will help our kids, that will help community health centers, that\nwill help our hospitals, and that will help our veterans, the focus is\non a political rally in Pennsylvania. This is unbelievable. Cancel the\nrally--you have until March 13--and, instead, focus on the people's\nbusiness.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms.\nDeGette), the co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus.\n  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, this bill imposes dangerous new standards\nof care on doctors under threat of criminal penalties, including up to\n5 years in jail. It is just another attempt by the majority to\ninterfere with the medical judgment of doctors and other trained\nhealthcare professionals, and it is, frankly, another example of why it\nis such a very, very bad idea for Congress to be legislating medical\nstandards.\n  H.R. 4712 is also a solution in search of a problem. There is simply\nno evidence that current law is insufficient to protect infants.\n  It should go without saying that it has always been illegal to kill\nnewborns. It is a complete distortion of the truth to say anything\notherwise.\n  In 2002, as my colleagues have said, Congress reaffirmed that infants\nare entitled to appropriate medical care under a law that passed on a\nbipartisan basis. I voted for it. That law left medical judgment where\nit should be: in the hands of doctors, instead of politicians.\n  Today, the only example that we have heard from the other side of a\nhorror that they are talking about was Dr. Kermit Gosnell, and it was a\nhorror.\n  And guess what?\n  He was prosecuted under current law.\n  And guess what?\n  He is spending the rest of his life in prison, which is where he\nshould be.\n  Sadly, the true intent of this bill is to intimidate and shame\ndoctors out of providing comprehensive reproductive healthcare to\npatients.\n  The extreme and vague requirements of this bill, coupled with its\nstiff criminal and civil penalties, are only meant to have a chilling\neffect on providers, which will reduce access to safe and legal\nabortion.\n  Do you know what? I have been saying this every time we have one of\nthese bills on the floor--the bills that are solutions in search of\nproblems. Here is what I have to say, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues on\nthe other side of the aisle: If they truly want to reduce abortion in\nthis country, work with us on providing family planning and long-acting\nbirth control to everybody.\n\n  Abortion is at the lowest rate in history in this country, and the\nreason is because States, like my State of Colorado, are providing\nbirth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. We can do this on a\nbipartisan basis, but, instead, my colleagues choose not to, and I\nthink that is a shame for every single woman and family in this\ncountry.\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, I understand why my colleague on the other side of the\naisle doesn't want the President to be traveling to Pennsylvania. He\ndoesn't want him to be traveling, I am sure, to any battleground\nStates. It didn't work out very well for his party in 2016, when the\nPresident, very effectively, did just that all over the country.\n  I would also say that it is brave for my colleague to read a tweet of\nthe President here on the House floor. I think the last time that the\ntwo of us were here together, we discussed the fact that it was a tweet\nfrom the President that scared his leadership away\n\n[[Page H499]]\n\nfrom a crucial meeting at the White House to negotiate the budget cap\ndeal, to negotiate exactly the deal that he is now so anxious to get\ndone.\n  I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that work is underway. I can assure\nyou that we could have a deal right now today if--and I will repeat it\nonce again. I know my colleague is going to say that the Republicans\ncontrol the Senate. But he knows, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that the\nrules of the Senate require 60 votes to get something done. That means\ntoday that if Chuck Schumer and the Democrats in the Senate are\nunwilling to agree to the cap deal, they are unwilling to provide the\nresources that we need to fund the military, the resources to make sure\nour men and women in uniform can defend the Nation, because they are\nholding out, and they are holding that hostage over amnesty. We could\nget it done today if they would be willing simply to come to the table\nand compromise and stop holding our troops hostage.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia\n(Mr. Mooney).\n  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for\nbringing this important bill to the floor.\n  We have heard it mentioned that, in 2002, in a bipartisan way, we\nalready have law that a baby born alive, at any stage of gestation, any\nweeks of life, born alive, it is already illegal to kill the baby, and\nthat was a bipartisan bill; so I can understand why my friends on the\nother side of the aisle want to keep changing the subject. Every vote\ntoday should be for this bill.\n  We have already agreed that you have to save the lives of these\nchildren. The problem is that we don't have strong enforcement\nmechanisms. This bill provides enforcement mechanisms. This bill\nspecifies any medical care. This should be a unanimous vote.\n  That is what we need to talk about here today--in fact, life begins\nat conception--to have laws that protect babies born alive. Now,\nremember, these are babies who are born alive. There have been\nquestions about whether or not it happens.\n  Melissa Ohden, who testified in the Judiciary Committee a couple of\nyears ago, was a baby born alive. She started her own network, the\nAbortion Survivors Network, where she has had contact with 203 other\nabortion survivors.\n  Sometimes when they go in to start the abortion, they start the\ntreatments, the dilation, and the chemical treatments, the baby comes\nout alive. I know people listening to this here today might believe\nthat this is a horror story and that this doesn't happen. It happens in\nAmerica.\n  We need to fight this, make it illegal, and pass this bill, so that\nthose babies are given the same protection as any other child who is\nalive. This is a no-brainer. The only shame today is that when this\nvote is cast later, if there are not 435 ``yes'' votes on that board\ntoday, that should be the shame of this situation. These are live\nbabies. This is a no-brainer bill.\n  I am proud to represent the State of West Virginia, where respect for\nhuman life is cherished. Every Member of this body should respect human\nlife. If it is already law, you should have no problem voting for it.\nThat is all the more reason to support the bill before us today.\n  The voters of this country have elected us to do the job of the pro-\nlife majority. It is time we pass bills like this, and more bills like\nthis, so that we can show people we care about the unborn children.\n\n                              {time}  1315\n\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Let me respond to the gentlewoman from Wyoming because I just want to\nmake sure I am clear here.\n  There are less than 35 hours left before the government shuts down. I\nthink that is a pretty big deal that should concern Republicans and\nDemocrats.\n  I want to be clear. I don't care if the President goes to\nPennsylvania. He can fly on his nice jet, enjoy lifestyles of the rich\nand famous or whatever he does, and go anywhere he wants in this\ncountry. I don't care where he travels to.\n  What we object to is the fact that this House is going to recess\nduring this critical time so that he can bring along a whole bunch of\nRepublican Members of Congress to be part of a political event at this\ncrucial moment when the government is about to shut down. I find that\nastonishing.\n  The gentlewoman talks about how we owe it to the men and women in\nuniform to make sure we support our military. Do you think our men and\nwomen in uniform want us to take a break right now so that Republican\nMembers can join the President on his fancy jet and go to Pennsylvania\nfor a political rally? Is that where the priorities of this Republican\nmajority really are?\n  I guess it is a habit. The last time we almost had a shutdown, in\nDecember, the Republicans took a break so that they could go to the\nWhite House for a party to celebrate their tax bill.\n  I am sorry. I know a lot of Republicans in my district and across the\ncountry who I don't think prioritize parties and political rallies over\nus doing our business. Either postpone the political rally or have the\nPresident go without Members of Congress. But the idea to recess until\nafter 7 at this crucial moment when so much is in the balance I find\njust unbelievably beyond the pale.\n  Mr. Speaker, for months the majority has been holding the healthcare\nof 9 million children and over 9 million individuals, including seniors\nand pregnant women, hostage while they passed tax breaks for\nmillionaires and billionaires. Well, time is up. With each day that we\nfail to act, our constituents face uncertain times. It is wrong.\n  Mr. Speaker, even President Trump says he agrees that we need to act\non CHIP. Just this morning he tweeted: ``CHIP should be part of a long-\nterm solution, not a 30-day or a short-term extension.''\n  Well, here is the chance to stop playing politics with CHIP--and\ncommunity health centers as well--and do just that. If we defeat the\nprevious question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up\nRepresentative McEachin's bill, H.R. 4820, the Advancing Seniors and\nKids Act.\n  This bill would restore certainty and stability to so many of our\nvulnerable citizens by responsibly addressing critical healthcare\npriorities. It permanently reauthorizes CHIP; it reauthorizes community\nhealth centers for 2 years; and it includes other vital healthcare\nprograms that provide relief to pregnant women, seniors, and many more.\n  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my\namendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately\nprior to the vote on the previous question.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentleman from Massachusetts?\n  There was no objection.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nVirginia (Mr. McEachin) to discuss our proposal.\n  Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, my Advancing Seniors and Kids Act would\npermanently reauthorize CHIP, fund community health centers, prevent\ndamaging cuts to our safety net hospitals, and make other changes that\nprotect the health of children, seniors, and our most vulnerable\nfriends and neighbors.\n  For months, Congress has failed to act on these issues, and the\nresult has been completely avoidable pain and suffering. Right now,\nAmericans wake up every day and worry: How much longer will my child,\nmy family members have healthcare?\n  Mr. Speaker, we can take that fear away right now. Extending CHIP and\nfunding community health centers, these are commonsense policies with\nbipartisan support. We should have passed clean extensions a long time\nago, but we can make amends right now.\n  We know that healthcare coverage saves lives. We know that CHIP\ncovers almost 9 million children. It is critically important that we do\nthe right thing. If we let CHIP lapse, if we do not protect hospitals\nand community centers, there will be horrible consequences for families\nacross this country.\n  Today more Americans have coverage than ever before. Medical\nbankruptcies are a lot less common than they were in the past. We are\nmaking progress.\n  I am urging my colleagues to build on that progress and not to\nabandon it.\n\n[[Page H500]]\n\nA solution is right here in front of us. I urge all of my colleagues to\nvote ``no'' on the previous question and join me in supporting quality\nand affordable healthcare for all Americans.\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, if my colleague from Massachusetts is so\nconcerned about the government shutdown, about children's health, about\nproviding relief for healthcare, then I assume that he will be voting\n``yes'' for the CR that comes to the floor later today, which, in fact,\ndoes extend CHIP, which, in fact, does help to provide relief from the\nterrible medical device tax, and which will keep the government open. I\nthink that, if he wants to make sure that his objectives are met, there\nis a simple solution to do that.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.\nLamborn).\n  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, there are some issues we debate here in the\nHouse that, frankly, should not be a matter of question in anyone's\nmind. One of those is whether or not a baby born and is outside of the\nwomb deserves protection.\n  Sometimes abortion attempts fail and babies are born alive: its heart\nis beating, muscles moving, and lungs working. Tragically, some\nabortion providers then kill these infants directly or through neglect\nand exposure, and this is unconscionable.\n\n  The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act says that a baby who\nsurvives an abortion must be treated at a hospital with the same care\nas a baby born alive naturally at the same state of pregnancy. The bill\nincludes criminal sanctions against any abortion provider who kills a\nbaby born alive.\n  Mr. Speaker, killing a baby outside of the womb is unquestionably the\ntaking of an innocent human life. I urge unanimous support of\nRepresentative Blackburn's bill.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman from\nWyoming that I am not going to vote for the CR because it doesn't do\nanything for community health centers and doesn't do anything to\nalleviate the burden of DSH payments for the hospitals that provide to\nvulnerable communities and doesn't fund Veterans Health the way we want\nit to. There is a whole bunch of stuff.\n  I just want this process to move forward so we can get back to\nnegotiating and actually get a deal that is bipartisan that we all can\nbe proud of. That is why--tell your Members: Please don't go on this\npolitical rally today. Instead, let's keep this House going and let's\ndo the people's work.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida\n(Ms. Frankel).\n  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my, my, my, here we go again,\nRepublicans playing politics with deeply personal healthcare decisions\nthat belong between women and their physicians.\n  The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is not going to save\nlives. It is going to wrench us back to the dark days of coat hanger\nmedicine where women were killed and maimed in back alleys.\n  This legislation has one aim: intimidate good and decent doctors;\nthreaten them with imprisonment if they dare to perform a legal\nabortion, exercising their own medical judgment and with the consent of\ntheir patient.\n  I strongly oppose this legislation.\n  Mr. Speaker, the women of this country are watching. We will not go\nback.\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. LaMalfa).\n  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot about how we can't do\ntwo things at once around here. We have 435 Members of the House of\nRepresentatives. We have multiple committees. There are negotiations\ngoing on in other rooms right now, but there is no time to do this\nimportant piece of legislation to stop infanticide in this country. It\nis like, wow, can Members of Congress not walk and chew gum at the same\ntime?\n  I would invite my Democratic colleagues: Here, try some gum. We need\nto do this.\n  This empowers nurses. This empowers those assistants who see\nsomething that is terribly wrong with an abortion that went wrong and\nthey have a chance. Instead, they have to clandestinely sneak out that\nsurviving baby and take them somewhere else because they can't get the\ncare they need; they might get in trouble from their boss.\n  What kind of country is that? Why is this even a debate in a\ncivilized country in 2018 that you wouldn't do everything you can,\nafter the already difficult or bad decision on an abortion, that a baby\nwho survived, that we are not going to do everything we can to swoop it\naway and help it survive? What are we talking about here? This is\nunbelievable to me.\n  Mr. Speaker, we need to pass this legislation and empower those\nnurses, empower those assistants who see what is wrong and allow them\nto do the right thing.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa\n(Mr. King).\n  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor on this. I want to\nmake sure that people know that I am an original cosponsor of the\nunderlying bill. I support the underlying bill. I have signed on to\nevery piece of pro-life legislation that I can find, and I came here to\nsave as many lives as we can.\n  My question out here is: What do you have to do to break out of the\nstraightjacket of incrementalism and get to actually saving numbers of\nlives?\n  My hat is off to Jill Stanek. She brought this bill a long way. We\nare going to honor her today on the vote on the final passage of the\nbill.\n  But I am putting up a procedural vote, a ``no'' vote on the rule\ntoday, because we have 170 cosponsors on the Heartbeat bill. I have\ngone to every meeting. Nobody brought this bill up as the premier bill,\nand somehow, one outside organization came in and lobbied to put this\nahead. It had 61 cosponsors instead of 170. There has been no hearing.\n  I am for the bill. Attach them both together. Let's save all the\nlives we can. But if nobody has the courage to step up and say what is\nwrong with this process, then we're never going to fix the process.\n  So I am going to vote ``no'' on the rule. I won't ask anybody else to\ndo that. I will vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I will go back\nto work to save as many lives as we possibly can.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Iowa: the\nprocess stinks.\n  I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from\nLouisiana (Mr. Johnson).\n  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, we have heard some outrageous\narguments from our colleagues on the other side in the last hour or so.\nI have heard things like the argument that this is unnecessarily\nlegislating medical standards. They said that this should be a matter\nof medical judgment. Really?\n  A commitment to the sanctity of every single human life is essential\nto who we are as Americans and, more fundamental than that, who we are\nas human beings.\n  They have also argued that this is a solution in search of a problem,\nbut they ignore the data. According to the CDC, between 2003 and 2014,\n588 of the infant deaths reported included a record that the cause of\ndeath was ``termination of pregnancy affecting a fetus and a newborn.''\nThe CDC acknowledges that this could be an underestimate.\n\n  I can tell you from my own experience, firsthand, over two decades\nlitigating against the abortion industry in Louisiana that that\nindustry always underreports their numbers of terminations and,\ncertainly, their complications.\n  Just yesterday, I spoke with my friend Brandi in Baton Rouge. She is,\nherself, a survivor of a failed abortion attempt. She was left to die,\nand now she lives with severe disabilities because of that. She is a\npassionate advocate for life. Mr. Speaker, every single one of us\nshould be.\n  The most important responsibility of a just government is to defend\nthe defenseless. With the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,\nit is necessary to protect the most vulnerable in our society, and I\nurge my colleagues to vote in favor of the legislation.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.\nJackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.\n\n[[Page H501]]\n\n  (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend\nher remarks.)\n  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the opposing of the\nrule and opposing of H.R. 4712 to support the right of a woman to\nchoose and to support loving families.\n  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Rule and the\nunderlying bill.\n  I strongly oppose this latest attempt by the Republican House\nmajority to limit women's rights to safe and legal abortions.\n  H.R. 4712 amends the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act--a 2002 law\nthat the pro-choice community did not oppose.\n  This bill, however, adds penalties to the law and an entirely new\nsection in which Congress attempts to intrude directly into medical\npractice of abortion care for anti-choice ideological purposes.\n  Anti-choice lawmakers say this new bill is necessary because some\nbabies ``survive'' abortion procedures.\n  They cite the now-discredited videos attacking Planned Parenthood as\ntheir evidence.\n  Of course, such allegations are untrue: newborns already have many\nlegal protections, and there is no similarity between safe, legal\nabortion care and infanticide.\n  This bill is a solution in search of a problem.\n  No evidence of lawbreaking has been uncovered that necessitates\ncongressional involvement.\n  Abortion practice is safe, legal, and humane; any evidence of\nwrongdoing can and should be handled under existing law.\n  If there is ever a case of harm or mistreatment of newborns, then of\ncourse, it should be investigated and prosecuted.\n  No such case exists here.\n  That makes it even clearer that H.R. 4712 must have other purposes;\nwe believe the bill's true goals are to inflame the public with\noutrageous accusations, to interfere with medical care, and to\nintimidate doctors out of practice.\n  This legislation is consistent with the assaults that the Trump\nAdministration and anti-abortion members of Congress in both the House\nand Senate have been undertaking throughout the 115th Congress and show\nno signs of ending.\n  The bill intrudes into medical practice, its mandate is so broad and\nthe penalties so severe--up to five years in prison and the threat of\nfinancially crippling lawsuits--that one can only conclude that H.R.\n4712 hopes to intimidate abortion providers out of practice.\n  This interference in medical care could also cause tremendous\nadditional grief to some families making difficult decisions in\nheartbreaking cases.\n  We would not tolerate similar intrusion by politicians into any other\nmedical specialty; abortion care is no different.\n  Finally, it is important to put this legislation into the proper\ncontext.\n  We are in the midst of an unprecedented assault against reproductive\nrights: this bill is just one in a litany to restrict a woman's right\nto choose while using women as political pawns with an extremist, anti-\nchoice base.\n  Instead of spending time attempting to roll back women's\nconstitutionally protected rights, this House should be advancing\nlegislation that will reform our truly broken immigration and criminal\njustice systems.\n  The bill before us is offered for a simple purpose; to sensationalize\nopposition to abortion and serve as a political decoy to shut down our\ngovernment.\n  The United States Supreme Court ruled over 40 years ago, in Roe v.\nWade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), that a woman's constitutional right to\nprivacy includes her right to abortion.\n  Since this landmark decision, abortion rates and risks have\nsubstantially declined, as have the number of teen and unwanted\npregnancies.\n  Restricting all access to reproductive and women's health services\nonly exacerbates a woman's risk of an unintended pregnancy and fails to\naccomplish any meaningful overthrow of Roe v. Wade.\n  In recent years, state policymakers have passed hundreds of\nrestrictions on abortion care under the guise of protecting women's\nhealth and safety.\n  Fights here in Congress have been no different.\n  In my state of Texas a law that would have cut off access to 75\npercent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state was challenged\nbefore the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015.\n  On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional\na Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that\nprovided the full range of services would be required to have a\nhospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements.\n  This requirement meant that only 7 clinics would be allowed to\ncontinue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to\nwomen.\n  Texas has 268,580 square miles only second in size to the state of\nCalifornia.\n  The impact of the law in implementation would have ended access to\nreproductive services for millions of women in my state.\n  In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to\nreproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10\nhealthcare providers in the state of Texas.\n  The Supreme Court once again intervened on the behalf of Texas women\nto block the move to close clinics in my state.\n  It seems every month we are faced with a new attack on women's access\nto reproductive health care, often couched in those same terms.\n  But we know that's not really the case.\n  If my colleagues were so concerned about women's health and safety,\nthey would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based\nproactive policies that improve women's health and well-being.\n  Instead, they are attacking Planned Parenthood in a back-handed\nattempt to ban abortion.\n  That is their number one priority. This is certainly not about\nprotecting women's health, it's about politics.\n  Just as the 1988 Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel\n(or the Blue Ribbon Commission) sought to separate the question of\nethics of abortion from the question ethics of using fetal tissue from\nlegal elective abortions for medical research when laying the\nfoundation for the 1993, NIH Health Revitalization Act (which passed\noverwhelmingly with bipartisan support), we must separate the personal\nviews of abortion from the legal issues of federal compliance.\n  Namely, the NIH Health Revitalization Act prohibits the payment or\nreceipt of money or any other form of valuable consideration for fetal\ntissue, regardless of whether the program to which the tissue is being\nprovided is funded or not.\n  A limited exception, and crux of the applicable issue of legality,\nlies with the provision allowing for reimbursement for actual expenses\n(e.g. storage, processing, transportation, etc.) of the tissue.\n  Planned Parenthood repeatedly maintains and supports that their\naffiliates involved with fetal tissue research comply with this\nrequirement.\n  In fact, of the 700+ affiliate health care centers across the\ncountry, only 4 Planned Parenthood affiliates currently offer tissue\ndonation services and of those 4, only 2 (California and Washington)\noffer fetal tissue donation services--that's 1 percent of all Planned\nParenthood service centers.\n  The California affiliate receives a modest reimbursement of $60 per\ntissue specimen and the Washington affiliate receives no reimbursement.\n  It is worth noting that fetal tissue has been used for decades.\n  Since the 1920's researchers have used fetal tissue to study and\ntreat various neurological disorders, spinal cord injuries, diabetes,\nimmune deficiencies, cancers and life-threatening blood diseases.\n  One of the earliest advances with fetal tissue was to use fetal\nkidney cells to create the first poliovirus vaccines, which are now\nestimated to save 550,000 lives worldwide every year.\n  The most widely known application in the field of human fetal tissue\ntransplantation has been the Treatment of Parkinson's disease.\n  Many of our other common vaccines, such as polio, measles, chicken\npox, rubella and shingles, have been developed through the use of fetal\ntissue or cell lines derived from fetal tissue.\n  When looking at the 1 percent of health care providers involved in\nfetal tissue donation and research, and no clear credible proof of\nillegal activity, it is obvious that attacks on Planned Parenthood are\nwholly misguided.\n  Planned Parenthood has one of the most rigorous Medical standards and\naccreditation processes in the country.\n  It is the only national provider that has developed a single set of\nevidence-based Medical Standards and Guidelines that define how health\ncare is provided throughout the country.\n  Guidelines are developed and updated annually by a group of\nnationally-renowned experts, physicians, and scientists, including\nmedical experts from Harvard and Columbia.\n  Planned Parenthood affiliates must submit to accreditation reviews\nthat include 100 indicators (or high level areas of review) and over\n600 individual Elements of Performance (or measures for review). Half\nof these relate to the provision of medical care and patient safety.\n  Planned Parenthood has strict requirements regarding compliance with\nall federal, state, and local laws and regulations. A specific area of\ncompliance is with mandatory reporting laws and regulations regarding\nreporting in instances where the welfare of a minor is endangered.\n  All staff with patient contact are rigorously trained regarding\ncompliance with federal, state and local laws and regulations governing\nservice to minors.\n\n[[Page H502]]\n\n  Violations of mandatory reporting regulations are subject to\ndisciplinary action, up to and including termination.\n  It is no secret that the Center for Medical Progress is an extreme\nanti-choice organization with a goal of outlawing legal abortion\nprocedures in this country.\n  To achieve that goal, they have shamelessly targeted Planned\nParenthood and the funding that provides healthcare services to\nmillions of women every year.\n  They continue to use deceptive tactics and secret videos to try and\nundermine Planned Parenthood.\n  Just like Live Action, the Center for Medical Progress is not a group\nthat can be taken credibly.\n  The Center for Medical Progress is simply recreating a history of\ndoctoring and manipulating video intended to create misimpressions\nabout Planned Parenthood.\n  It is a coordinated effort by anti-choice forces--not only on Planned\nParenthood or a woman's right to choose, but on women's health care\nacross the board.\n  At the same time, national media is reporting about a major\ncoordinated push by anti-choice groups and Members of Congress to\ndefund Planned Parenthood.\n  This coordinated effort to defund Planned Parenthood is an assault on\nall progressive health care, service, and advocacy organizations who\naim to provide vital care and services to women and men across this\ncountry.\n  The public is standing by Planned Parenthood, which plays a vital\nrole in defending women's health and rights.\n  Hundreds of thousands have already spoken up, including leading\ngroups and communities such as the growing voice of our millennial\ngeneration.\n  My colleagues should be doing more to connect our youth and women to\nservices that help them reduce their risk of unintended pregnancies and\nSTD's, and improve their overall health through preventative\nscreenings, education and planning, rather than restricting their\naccess to lawfully entitled family planning and private health\nservices.\n  I urge all Members to vote against the rule and the underlying bill.\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from\nWashington (Mr. Newhouse), my colleague on the Rules Committee.\n\n                              {time}  1330\n\n  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support of\nthis rule and to provide consideration of H.R. 4712, the Born-Alive\nAbortion Survivors Protection Act, which would ensure that children who\nsurvive an abortion, or an attempted abortion, are given proper medical\ntreatment.\n  I am a proud cosponsor of this bill to ensure that babies born alive\nare transported and admitted to a hospital immediately following\nemergency care. As a Christian and as a father of two, I hold\nmaintaining the sanctity of life as my highest priority.\n  The House of Representatives voted to pass this legislation in the\n114th Congress, but it was met with an unresponsive Senate. I will vote\nagain to support this bill to hold healthcare providers accountable,\nprotect and empower mothers, and help ensure that these innocent\nchildren are provided the same medical care that any other newborn\nwould receive. I remain hopeful that this time around we can send this\nimportant legislation to the President to be signed into law.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is left on\neach side?\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming has 4 minutes\nremaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 minutes remaining.\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman prepared to close?\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as long as the gentlewoman doesn't have\nany other speakers, I am prepared to close.\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.\n  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say to all of my colleagues,\nDemocrats and Republicans, that this process is lousy. This is yet\nanother closed rule. The bill before us didn't even go through\ncommittee. There was not a hearing. There was not a markup. It just\nmiraculously appeared right before an anti-choice rally, and here it\nis, take it or leave it. That is not the way this place is supposed to\nbe run.\n  At some point, no matter what your ideology is, no matter what you\nbelieve about some of these issues, you have to be for a more open\nprocess, a more deliberative process. This diminishes the House of\nRepresentatives. This is not what the people, I don't care what the\npolitical party or ideology may be, want from their Congress. They want\na more open and transparent process.\n  Mr. Speaker, this bill before us, as I said before, is a sound bite.\nIt is going nowhere, but it has been introduced, and we are going to be\nvoting on it purely for political purposes.\n  Mr. Speaker, this morning, the majority whip announced: ``Upon\nconclusion of debate on H.R. 195''--that is the CR--``the House will\nrecess until 7 p.m.''\n  Recess? I mean, recess? With all that is at stake, we are going to\nrecess?\n  This isn't a time for recess or a political rally.\n  Shame on Republicans who are delaying action in this House on moving\nthe process forward on a continuing resolution, to try to buy some time\nto make it better, hopefully, so that it can earn bipartisan support.\nShame on them for going to a political rally instead of staying here\nand doing their job.\n  This is the time to responsibly fund government. Those of us on the\nDemocratic side have a lot of issues with what the House leadership is\nramming through in terms of a CR. We were not part of that discussion.\nWe were not asked what our values are and what we think is important.\nThis is purely a product that the Republicans negotiated with\nRepublicans.\n  My hope is that we have time to make it better, but when you recess\nuntil 7, not to make it better, not to negotiate, but so that\nRepublicans can go to a political rally, shame on you for doing that\nwith all that is at stake.\n  Our soldiers don't want us to recess. Those who depend on community\nhealth centers don't want us to recess. Our veterans don't want us to\nrecess. Yet everybody's perfectly fine on the other side of the aisle\nwith taking a break; no big deal; no rush, nothing, as we get closer\nand closer to this crisis.\n  At some point we need responsible leadership in this House, and that\nbegins with a return to regular order, a more open and transparent\nprocess, a respect for the views of the minority, and it means\nprioritizing the business of the American people.\n  I will say funding the government is more important than a political\nrally in Pennsylvania.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  I agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, my\ncolleague from Massachusetts. There is shameful action underway in this\nCongress, and that shameful action is the fact that, I will say once\nagain, we are in a situation where our men and women in uniform have\nnot received the appropriations that they need to do the job that we\nare asking them to do. And the reason they haven't--we have passed an\nauthorization bill through this body; we have passed an appropriations\nbill through this body, but the Democrats in the Senate are refusing to\nact. The Democrats in the Senate who hold the key to getting 60 votes\nin the United States Senate are refusing to act. The reason they are\nrefusing to act, Mr. Speaker, is because they want amnesty for illegal\nimmigrants, and they are holding hostage the extent to which we are\nable to provide resources to fund our men and women in uniform.\n  Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous amount of urgency on both sides of\nthe aisle. I respect my colleague from Massachusetts and I respect his\nfrustration, but I do not respect, Mr. Speaker, the extent to which he\nis accusing us of shameful behavior.\n  We are on this floor today talking about a bill that will protect\nbabies who are born alive after abortions. The shameful behavior is\nthat, on the other side of the aisle, they want to talk politics, they\nwant to talk posturing, they want to talk process. They don't want to\ntalk about babies who are born alive after abortion. I know why they\ndon't want to talk about it, because it is uncomfortable. They would\nrather ignore that it is actually happening, but we can't ignore it.\n\n  Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation in this body to ensure that we\nprovide protection and care for those who cannot, for the most\nvulnerable among us. Mr. Speaker, it is a moral obligation to ensure\nthe protection of every baby born alive.\n\n[[Page H503]]\n\n  I am proud to be here today on behalf of the rule, Mr. Speaker, and I\nurge adoption of both the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4712, so\nwe can continue to do what is right, what is morally required of us,\nand that is to protect and nurture and make sure we have provided\nsafeguards for the unborn and for those who are born alive after\nabortion.\n  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:\n\n          An Amendment to H. Res. 694 Offered by Mr. McGovern\n\n       At the end of the resolution, add the following new\n     sections:\n       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the\n     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare\n     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on\n     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.\n     4820) to extend funding for certain public health programs,\n     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall\n     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration\n     of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to\n     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among\n     and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority\n     members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee\n     on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall\n     be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All\n     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At\n     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the\n     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with\n     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous\n     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and\n     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening\n     motion except one motion to recommit with or without\n     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports\n     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the\n     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the\n     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,\n     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further\n     consideration of the bill.\n       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the\n     consideration of H.R. 4820.\n                                  ____\n\n        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means\n\n       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous\n     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.\n     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote\n     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow\n     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a\n     vote about what the House should be debating.\n       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of\n     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the\n     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or\n     control the consideration of the subject before the House\n     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous\n     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the\n     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling\n     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the\n     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes\n     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to\n     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the\n     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated\n     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to\n     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to\n     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:\n     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman\n     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to\n     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first\n     recognition.''\n       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous\n     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an\n     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no\n     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''\n     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the\n     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in\n     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,\n     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous\n     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally\n     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member\n     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of\n     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by\n     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the\n     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the\n     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering\n     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls\n     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for\n     the purpose of amendment.''\n       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of\n     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special\n     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on\n     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on\n     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further\n     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:\n     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a\n     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control\n     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous\n     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who\n     controls the time for debate thereon.''\n       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does\n     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only\n     available tools for those who oppose the Republican\n     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the\n     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.\n\n  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I\nmove the previous question on the resolution.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous\nquestion.\n  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that\nthe ayes appeared to have it.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.\n  The yeas and nays were ordered.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further\nproceedings on this question will be postponed.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2018-01-18-pt1-PgH494-2"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 2.207497018389404, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}