Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Mr. Speaker, there are Kermit Gosnells all over American today inflicting not only violence, cruelty, and death on very young children but excruciating pain as well.

Many Americans, including some who self-identify as pro-choice, were shocked and dismayed by the Gosnell expose and trial. Perhaps the decades-long culture of denial and deceptive marketing has made it difficult to see and understand a disturbing reality. Even after 40 years of abortion-on-demand and over 55 million dead babies and millions of wounded mothers, many--until Gosnell--somehow construed abortion as victimless. That has changed. There are two victims, Mr. Speaker, in every abortion: the mother and her unborn child--three, if twins are involved.

The brutality of severing the spines of defenseless babies, euphemistically called ``snipping'' by Dr. Gosnell, has finally peeled away the benign facade of the billion-dollar abortion industry. Like Gosnell, abortionists all over America decapitate, dismember, and chemically poison babies to death each and every year. That's what they do.

Americans are connecting the dots and asking whether what Gosnell did is really any different than what all the other abortionists do. And the answer is, no, it's not different. A D&E abortion, which is described here as a common method after 14 months, is a gruesome, pain- filled act of violence that literally rips and tears to pieces the body parts of a child. And that's what they call ``choice.'' That is what they call safe and legal abortion.

Mr. Speaker, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, authored by Congressman Trent Franks and cosponsored by several Congresswomen and -men, including me, is a modest but absolutely necessary attempt to at least protect some babies, that is to say, those who are 20 weeks old and pain-capable, from having to suffer and die a painful death from abortion.

On May 23, Chairman Trent Franks convened a hearing in the Judiciary Committee's Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee on his legislation. The bill, H.R. 1797, entitled the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, was approved by the subcommittee on June 4 and now moves to the full committee and, hopefully, soon to the full House.

The testimony of several witnesses, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully submit is a must-read for anyone who cares about human rights, for anyone

who cares about women and children. One witness, Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist, testified that he performed approximately 1,200 abortions. Over 100 of them were second trimester abortions like this D&E procedure that is described here in this graph.

He said:

Imagine, if you can, you are a pro-choice obstetrician/

gynecologist like I once was. Your patient today is 24 weeks

pregnant. If you could see her baby, which is quite easy on

an ultrasound, she would be as long as your hand plus half

from the top of her head to the bottom of her rump, not

counting the legs. Your patient has been feeling her baby

kick for at least a month or more. But now she is asleep on

an operating table.

He continued:

With suction of the amniotic fluid, after that is

completed, you look for what he called a Sopher clamp. This

instrument is about 13 inches long and made of stainless

steel. At the business end are located jaws about 2\1/2\

inches long and about three-quarters of an initial inch.

This is what he is talking about right here.

This instrument is for grasping and crushing tissue. When

it gets hold of something, it does not let go.

A second trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure. The

baby can be in any orientation, he goes on, or position

inside the uterus. Picture yourself reaching in with the

Sopher clamp and grasping anything that you can.

At 24 weeks' gestation, the uterus is thin and soft, so be

careful not to perforate or puncture the walls. Once you've

grasped something inside--this doctor, former abortionist,

goes on to say--squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull

hard. Pull really hard. You feel something let go and out

pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in again

and grasp whatever you can, set the jaw, and pull really hard

once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach

in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine,

the intestines, the heart, and the lungs.

The doctor goes on to say that, the toughest part of a D&E

abortion is extracting the baby's head. The head of a baby

that age is about the size of a large plum and is now free

floating inside of the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure

you have hold of it if the Sopher clamp is spread as far as

your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when

you crush down on the clamp and you see a white gelatinous

material coming through the cervix. That is the baby's

brains, this abortionist goes on to say. You can then extract

the skull in pieces.

Many times, he went on in his testimony before Trent

Franks' subcommittee, many times a little face will come out

and stare back at you. Congratulations; you have just

successfully performed a second trimester D&E abortion. You

just affirmed the right to choose. If you refuse to believe

that this procedure inflicts severe pain on that unborn

child, please think again. It does.

Another witness, Mr. Speaker, Ms. Jill Stanek, a registered nurse, spoke of appalling stories of abortion survivors and the pain--the pain--the excruciating pain that they suffer when they are being aborted.

She pointed out that when she testified before the committee back in 2001:

it was to tell of her experience as a registered nurse in

the labor and delivery department at Christ Hospital in Oak

Lawn, Illinois, where she discovered babies were being

aborted alive and shelved, put on a shelf to die in the

department's soiled utility closet.

Indeed, this nurse went on to say at the hearing:

I was traumatized and changed forever by my experience of

holding a little abortion survivor for 45 minutes until he

died--a 21- to 22-week-old baby who had been aborted because

he had Down syndrome.

Since then, other appalling stories of abortion survivors either being abandoned or killed have trickled out.

In 2005, a mother delivered a 23-week-old baby in a toilet at an EPOC clinic in Orlando, Florida, and was shocked to see this little guy move. Abortion staff not only refused to help, but turned away paramedics, who her friend had notified by calling 911. Angele, the woman, could do no more than helplessly sit on the floor rocking and singing to her baby for 11 minutes until that infant died.

In 2006, Sycloria Williams delivered her 23-week-old baby born on a recliner at a GYN diagnostic center in Hialeah, Florida. When he began breathing and moving, abortion clinic owner Belkis Gonzalez cut the umbilical cord and zipped him into a biohazard bag, still alive.

The Kermit Gosnell case provides further evidence that the lines between infanticide and legal feticide, both via abortion, have become blurred. This abortionist was convicted only last week--that's when she was talking, when she testified--of three counts of first degree murder.

And also last week, as she went on to say, in yet another revelation and photos from three former employees who alleged that abortionist Douglas Karpen in Houston, Texas, routinely kills babies after they are born by puncturing the soft spot at the top of the head, or impaling the stomach with a sharp instrument, twisting off the head, or puncturing the throat with his finger.

Mr. Speaker, if that's not child abuse in its most extreme form, I don't know what is.

It is easy to be horrified, she went on in her testimony to say, this nurse, by heart-wrenching stories such as these and to imagine the torture abortion survivors endure as they are being killed. But it is somehow not so easy for some to envision preborn babies the same age being tortured as they are killed by similar methods.

Today, premature babies are routinely given pain relief who are born at the same age as babies who are torn limb from limb or injected in the heart during abortions.

Even the World Health Organization goes so far as to recommend analgesia for premies getting simple heel pricks for a couple of drops of blood. Likewise, prenatal surgery is commonplace, and along with it, anesthesia for babies being operated on even in the middle of pregnancy. Meanwhile, babies of identical age are being torn apart by D&E abortions with no pain relief whatsoever. Again, they suffer, and they suffer horribly.

It must be that some people inexplicably think that the uterus provides a firewall against fetal pain, or that babies marked for abortion are somehow numb while their wanted counterparts aren't. They're not numb. They feel every single bit of killing, whether it's the Sopher clamp or any other instrument is being used to dismember or to decapitate.

She concludes by saying:

This thinking is better suited for the Middle Ages than for

modern medicine.

Mr. Speaker, today there is ample documentation that unborn children experience serious pain from at least the 20th week--and most likely even before that. When it comes to pain, all of us go through great lengths to mitigate its severity and its duration. None of us ever want to die a painful death. Unborn children deserve no less.

I yield to the prime sponsor of this very important legislation, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), the chairman of the committee and, like I said, the author of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Stutzman, for your eloquent remarks as well as those of Chairman Franks', who is compassionate and courageous like you and like our next speaker, who is also eloquent in the defense of the most defenseless.

I would like to yield to Dr. Andy Harris, who is a board-certified anesthesiologist at Johns Hopkins Hospital Medical Center.

I want to thank my good friend and very distinguished colleague, Dr. Andy Harris, for his very eloquent and very incisive remarks and for his leadership on behalf of human rights in general, including here in the United States.

We've been discussing human rights abuse here in the United States in trying to defend at least pain-capable unborn children from the violence of abortion. I would like to focus for a few moments on human rights abuse that is occurring halfway around the world in China.

Tomorrow, President Obama will meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in California to discuss security and economic issues. A robust discussion of human rights abuses in China, however, must be on the agenda and not in a superfluous or superficial way.

It is time to get serious about China's flagrant abuse of human rights. It's time for this President, this administration to end its manifest indifference towards human rights abuse in the People's Republic of China. It's time for President Obama to cease his numbing indifference towards the victims of Beijing's abuse.

Mr. Speaker, can a dictatorship that crushes the rights and freedoms of its own people be trusted on trade and security?

China today is the torture capital of the world, and victims include religious believers, ethnic minorities, human rights defenders like Chen Guancheng and Gao Zhisheng and hundreds and thousands of political dissidents.

If you are a political or religious dissident or believer of the Underground Christian Church, Falun Gong, a part of the Uyghur Muslim minority or Tibetan Buddhist, if you are arrested, you will be tortured, and in some cases you will be tortured to death.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, hundreds of millions of women have been forced to abort their precious babies pursuant to China's draconian one-child policy which has led to gendercide, the violent extermination of unborn baby girls simply because they are girls. The slaughter of the girl child in China is not only a massive gender crime, but a security issue, as well.

A witness at one of my hearings that I chaired--I chair the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations. Over the years, I have chaired over 46 congressional hearings focused exclusively on China's human rights issues. One of the witnesses at one of my earlier hearings, Valerie Hudson, author of a book called ``Bare Branches,'' testified that gender imbalance will lead to instability and chaos and even to war because of the domestic chaos and instability that will occur. And that the one child has not enhanced China's security, but it has demonstrably weakened it.

Nick Eberstadt, the world-renowned AEI demographer, has famously phrased it and asked the question: What are the consequences for a society that has chosen to become simultaneously more gray and more male--the missing daughters, by the tens of millions in China--as a direct result of sex-selection abortion?

In 2000, Mr. Speaker, I authored a law known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. It is our landmark

law in combating the hideous crime of modern-day slavery, sex, and labor trafficking. China has now become the magnet for the traffickers, buying and selling women as commodities, selling them in China against their will, of course, through coercion, because of the missing girls, the missing daughters, and the missing young women.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the world remembered the dream that was and is the Tiananmen Square protest of 1989 and deeply honored the sacrifice endured by an extraordinarily brave group of pro-democracy Chinese women and men who dared to demand fundamental human rights for all Chinese. Twenty-four years ago this week, the world watched in awe and wonder, as it has since mid-April of 1989, as hundreds of thousands of mostly young people peacefully petitioned the Chinese Government to reform and to democratize. China seemed to be the next impending triumph for freedom and democracy, especially after the collapse of the dictatorships of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. But when the People's Liberation Army poured in and around the square on June 3, the wonder of Tiananmen turned to shock, tears, fear, and helplessness. On June 3 and 4, and for days, weeks, and years, right up until today, the Chinese dictatorship delivered a barbaric response--mass murder, torture, incarceration, the systematic suppression of fundamental human rights, and coverup.

The Chinese Government not only continues to inflict unspeakable pain and suffering on its own people, but the coverup of the Tiananmen Square massacre is without precedent in modern history. Even though journalists and live television and radio documented the massacre, the Chinese Communist Party lies and continues to deny it, that it even occurred, to obfuscate, and to threaten anyone who dares speak out in China about the massacre and all of the terrible barbarity that followed.

In December of 1996, Mr. Speaker, General Chi Haotian, the operational commander who ordered the murder of the Tiananmen protesters, visited Washington, D.C., as the Chinese Defense Minister. You see, he was promoted after he killed all of those innocent people. Minister Chi was welcomed by President Clinton at the White House with full military honors, including a 19-gun salute--a bizarre spectacle that I and many others on both sides of the aisle protested. But why do I bring this up now? General Chi addressed the Army War College on that trip and in answer to a question said:

Not a single person lost his life in Tiananmen Square.

He claimed that the People's Liberation Army did nothing more violent than the ``pushing of people'' during the 1989 protest. Not a single person lost his or her life? Are you kidding?

That big lie and countless others like it, however, is, and it was then, the Communist Party's line about Tiananmen.

As chair of the Foreign Affairs Human Rights Committee then, I put together a congressional hearing within 2 days--December 8, 1996--and witnesses who were there on Tiananmen Square in 1989, including Dr. Yang Jianli, a leader and survivor of the massacre, and Time magazine Bureau Chief David Aikman, who were actually witnesses at my hearing this past Monday. We also invited Minister Chi, or anyone the Chinese Embassy might want to send to the hearing to give an accounting of that blatant lie. I guess Minister Chi thought he was back in Beijing when he was at the Army War College where the big lie is king and no one ever dares to do a fact check.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of State asked the Chinese Government to ``end harassment of those who participated in the protest of 1989 and fully account for those killed, detained, or missing.'' What was the response from the Chinese Government? The Chinese Foreign Ministry acrimoniously said that the United States should ``stop interfering in China's internal affairs so as not to sabotage China-U.S. relations.''

We have heard that line from the Soviet Union. We heard it from those who supported apartheid in South Africa: Don't interfere.

Human rights are universal, and we need to speak out boldly and without fear when they are violated, wherever and whenever they occur.

``Sabotage'' Sino-American relations because our side requests an end to harassment and an accounting? It sounds to me like they have much to hide.

Therefore, Mr. President, tomorrow when you meet with the unelected President of China, and Saturday when you meet with him as well, please be informed, be bold, be tenacious, and seriously raise human rights with Chinese President Xi. No superficial intervention. No checking off on the box, Yes, I raised human rights. Raise real names. Ask for their release. Raise real issues, like the horrific one child per couple policy or the endemic use of torture by the Chinese dictatorship. Raise the 16 cases that are being raised and given to you to raise of individuals, people who in China are like the modern-day Natan Sharansky or others who have suffered so much for freedom for all these years--like Gao Zhisheng and others.

Mr. Speaker, we will not forget what took place in Tiananmen Square 24 years ago this past Monday and Tuesday. The struggle for freedom in China continues. Some day the people of China will enjoy all of their God-given fundamental human rights; and as a nation of free Chinese women and men, they will some day honor and applaud all those who suffered so much in the Laogai, the Chinese gulags, and sacrificed so much for so long.

Mr. President, the ball is in your court. President Obama, raise these issues and do it in a robust, sincere, yes, diplomatic, but very powerful way.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I come to the floor to discuss a bill addressed only to my district, the District of Columbia, which will come to a hearing next Thursday in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, chaired by Chairman Trent Franks.

In point of fact, over the last month, there have been two such bills introduced in this House, bills that can only fairly be characterized as abuse of power. They are both directed against only one jurisdiction--my own district.

H.R. 7 would appear to be a Federal matter. That bill would make permanent the Hyde amendment, which annually passes this House every year, barring the use of Federal funds for abortion. Wherever you stand on abortion, at the very least, that is a Federal matter. In the very same bill however is an outrageous abuse. The bill seeks to do the same for the District of Columbia, barring permanently the use of local funds--funds raised by local taxpayers--for abortions for low-income women. Local funds are similarly used for abortions for low income districts in districts across the United States because, after all, they are local funds. But H.R. 7 redefines the Nation's Capital which was given home rule in 1973, as a free-standing jurisdiction--instead of a Federal agency for purposes of abortion.

Imagine having your district defined as a Federal agency so that the Congress can make ideological points by overturning local legislation at will. Yep, this is still America. That bill is H.R. 946. As to the District of Columbia, it's simply an expanded way to interfere with the business of a local jurisdiction.

I must say that I think that H.R. 7 and H.R. 1797 I will discuss shortly do point to the bankruptcy of the Republican agenda in the 113th Congress essentially does what is done anyway every year with respect to abortion. It hasn't come to the floor yet.

It hasn't come to the floor yet, and indeed very few bills have come to the

floor. Sometimes the House has a rule one day and the bill the next day when there was plenty of time on both days because the Republican House doesn't have any agenda and it has to stretch out what few bills it has to make it look like there's something that the House is doing. That's how the House is doing its business.

Now the House is into my business, however, when it deals with the district I represent, a district of 600,000 American citizens who you can bet your life are going to demand and always demand to be treated as full American citizens because that is exactly who we are. We will never accept overriding our rights--our local rights and our constitutional rights--in order to satisfy the agenda of this Member of Congress or that Member of Congress who is making a point for special interest groups or for others.

The bill that I want to primarily discuss, H.R. 1797, goes beyond the usual way in which the Congress--or at least the Republican Congress-- seeks to interfere with the rights of the people of the District of Columbia. What they do generally is to take advantage of the fact that the district's own local taxpayer-raised funds have to come here essentially to be checked off and signed off, and Congress don't ever look at the budget. How could they? They don't know anything about a local jurisdiction's budget. But they do use the local budget to attach their own ideological stripes, and the usual one has to do with abortion.

H.R. 1797 uses the District of Columbia in yet a new way with a new abuse because it goes beyond the low-income women for whom the district cannot spend its own local funds. Instead, H.R. 1797 goes after every woman in the District of Columbia because that bill essentially would make all abortions in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks illegal.

Don't talk about the obvious constitutional issue. I'll get to that in a minute.

H.R. 1797 seeks to regulate pregnancy and abortion--a local matter-- with respect to only one jurisdiction, and it's a matter that usually involves a matter of principle. People who are ``pro-life,'' as they call themselves, have my respect, but this circumstance is the only example where I have seen them try to apply the principle only to one jurisdiction, leaving everybody else in the United States exempt from the so-called ``principle.'' If abortion should be denied after 20 weeks, as a matter of principle, then surely that principle should apply throughout the United States. There's a reason why it doesn't, and I will get to that.

First, I want to thank Chairman Trent Franks for permitting me the courtesy of testifying next Thursday at the hearing of H.R. 1797 that affects only my district. He had two bills last year. This bill is a redux of the same bill that came to the floor and was defeated last year, and he also had another to permanently disallow local funds to be used to fund abortions for poor women in the District. On both of those bills, I was denied the right and the courtesy of testifying, although traditionally granted to Members, even though bills don't usually involve only one jurisdiction.

This bill is of great concern not only to me, but there's going to be a press conference next week indicating that the bill is viewed by women all over the United States as, of course, a vehicle to eliminate the reproductive rights of women across the country. The bill is fatally flawed in several obvious ways.

First, there is discriminatory treatment of the District of Columbia to its residents by banning abortions after 20 weeks only in the District of Columbia, as I've indicated. If barring abortion is a principle, it's a principle that as a matter of principle, would apply nationwide. But it's not applied nationwide in H.R. 1797 because the District is the one jurisdiction over which Congress has a modicum of control. Until the District becomes a State, the Congress can step in. But, of course, the Home Rule Act contemplates that in our democracy Congress would never step in, unless there was an abuse of Federal authority by the District of Columbia. This would be, on the contrary, an abuse of Federal power by the Congress of the United States were this bill to pass.

The bill discriminates against the District by picking out the District among all the districts in the United States for unequal treatment. H.R. 1797 violates unabashedly Roe v. Wade, which allows abortion until viability as determined by a physician. Roe and all of its cases, all of the precedents that follow it, make it clear that viability cannot be determined by statute.

Roe v. Wade, 40 years ago, guaranteed the right of an abortion as a constitutional right. So you can expect that this is a matter that would be ultimately challenged. But the reason that the District is the vehicle used here is that the special interests obviously want a Federal imprimatur and don't have the guts to go get it by bringing a bill to the House floor that would apply to everybody. So they choose the bullying way, the easy way. You have a Federal imprimatur, if you can get the Congress to vote with respect to one jurisdiction because the Congress is Federal. Of course, the bill violates the Home Rule Act itself because while the Home Rule Act acknowledges the ultimate jurisdiction of the Congress, it clearly, in its terms, contemplates that the legislative power will go to the Council of the District of Columbia. There is no principled reason here to violate the local jurisdiction's local authority.

Here we have gone from the usual attack on low-income women by denying the city its authority to spend its own taxpayer-raised funds as it sees fit, to an attack on every woman of childbearing age, every such family in the District of Columbia.

The bill goes further. It criminalizes abortion by making a physician subject to imprisonment for up to 2 years for abiding by Roe v. Wade and engaging in an abortion.

Then the bill has a truly bizarre section which gives new meaning to the word ``extreme.'' It allows any current or former health provider, who has ever treated a woman--and it doesn't say when that provider might have treated a woman, perhaps as a child, because it has no limit--but allows any former health provider to obtain an injunction against the abortion. The right to privacy, among others is absent.

This is a new low in extreme provisions that we have seen in the Congress from my Republican colleagues. The very idea of even introducing a bill that would deny the constitutional rights of only one jurisdiction is an outrage in and of itself. Sure, bills are introduced on this floor all the time that are, on their face, unconstitutional, but it is bullying to pick out one jurisdiction because you don't have the courage to come forward with a national law, a national bill. By no means, however, do we believe a national bill is appropriate.

This bill has also been introduced on the other side by Senator Mike Lee of Utah. Apparently someone asked him if there is a 20-week abortion bill in Utah or if Congress might introduce one for Utah. He was quick to say, no, they don't have such a bill in Utah, and he would oppose it if the Congress tried to enact one that applied to Utah. He would be for only if Utah itself enacted the bill. So here we have a Tea Party Republican in the Senate who applies his Tea Party principles against federal intervention except when it comes to the District of Columbia.

Anybody who thinks that we're going to stand here and let that happen without, in fact, protesting it and rallying Americans who believe in fairness do not know us very well. We refuse to be a vehicle for the extreme views or pet projects of some Republicans. They have their own outlets. They have the right to come to this floor and offer bills. They have the right to speak on this floor in any way they choose. We will not be a prop for those views.

The Republicans are the supposedly small government Tea Party party who are now using the big foot Federal Government against a single jurisdiction that doesn't have a vote on this floor, that could not vote for or against H.R. 1797 if it came to this floor. What kind of courage is that? It's a bully's path to making ideological points. If you have an ideological point, make it; don't use my district to do so.

The extreme right-wing of the Republican Party doesn't even want the Federal Government in what the Federal Government has always done, but now they've got the Federal Government in

something that even they say the Federal Government should never be doing--interfering with the local rights of people to govern themselves locally.

This is a country in which there are wide differences on many subjects, perhaps none more so than the right to reproductive choice, but it is also a country that respects one another in the various States and localities where we live and do not try to reach over and somehow compel people in one jurisdiction to do as people in another jurisdiction do. That's the difference between this country, a Federal republic, and other countries, and it is a principle we mean to hold this Congress to.

There is the claim that, well, the District doesn't do enough restricting of abortion, so that's why we simply have to step in here. On the contrary, there are nine States that do not restrict abortions any more than the District does, and the District abides by Roe v. Wade. Yet this bill is directed against only one jurisdiction. Of course I take exception to the bill itself, but I take particular exception against being bullied by people outside my jurisdiction in order to satisfy their own personal philosophical concerns.

I can tell you this much: the notion that you can use the District and abuse its women on reproductive choice and nobody else will care should have been put to rest last year. The kickoff of the Republican attack on reproductive rights was, in fact, this bill which went to the floor and failed, but Republicans didn't stop there. Going back to abortion was not enough. They went all the way back to contraception and, amazingly, made contraception a campaign issue in the last election. Well, I hope they have learned their lesson, because women put all of this together and showed what they thought about it in the Presidential election.

I am very grateful to women all over the country for how they responded specifically to this very bill, this 20-week abortion bill that applied only to the District of Columbia. They were not fooled for a moment. Women across the United States wrote thousands of emails and letters indicating that they understood this bill, the very same bill that was defeated last year, to be a vehicle for inroads into the reproductive rights of women across the United States. Far from ignoring it because, after all, it was only 600,000 D.C. residents. The women may live in California or Wyoming--we saw them writing from their States in large numbers, making it clear that they saw it for what it was, that special interest groups were going from State to State to pass anti-choice bills. They begin at personhood where there is absolutely no right to abortion or contraception because, in their view, life begins at conception. And then some have 6-week bills and there are other 20-week bills. They are all over the map. And by the way, they are quite divided because they are all over the map.

They have settled on 20-week abortion, however, for H.R. 1797, and we mean to do for this bill what we did last year--to turn it back, to make women all over the country understand it for what it is, just as they did last year, to see that the only way to resist these attacks is to be as persistent as our opponents are in coming back to attack women using the women of the District of Columbia.

The women of my district are the chosen vehicle, but the targets are a national campaign against the reproductive rights of women in the Nation. They can't come to the floor, or they won't, with a broadside attack on the reproductive rights of women. So they do the cowardly thing and come against the District of Columbia because of the technical jurisdiction that, of course I can see the Congress has, but no principled Congress would ever use its federal power against a local jurisdiction.

Therefore I come to the floor this afternoon to put all on notice that you can come as many times as you want and as many ways as you want, but I represent 600,000 taxpaying Americans, and they insist that they are equal to Americans everywhere else.

For 100 years they did not have any rights. They didn't have the right to vote for President. They didn't have the right for a local government. For 100 years they were ruled by three commissioners appointed by the President.

During the civil rights era, the Congress became ashamed of having a local jurisdiction that was its Nation's Capital, that did not have the same rights as other people in the United States, not even a local government, a mayor or a city council who could enact legislation affecting the local population, although this population had been paying Federal income taxes ever since our country has been collecting income taxes. And our residents have fought and died in every war our country has ever fought, including the war that created the United States of America.

American citizens in a jurisdiction as old and historic as the Nation's Capital is, will not have our citizenship rights taken away lightly, and we will not be used and abused by Members of this Congress, whatever their party.

Our Union is not perfect, but it strives to be. It can become perfect only when it hears about its imperfections. There is no imperfection greater than having Members of Congress focus on one jurisdiction that does not have the same ability to defend itself as every other jurisdiction.

It is hard enough to see Members of Congress come down and vote on the District's local appropriation, which they had nothing to do with collecting, but which is still a part of what is allowed in the Congress. But it is disgraceful to see one issue picked out and one jurisdiction alone targeted.

If you feel strongly about your issue, step up and air your issue in the way this House allows. And I ask that whatever the Congress does, that it ask itself when it deals with the District of Columbia, is the action consistent with the principles that you profess on this floor time and again?

I ask reconsideration of any such attempts in the future. There is no possible way that any self-respecting jurisdiction would accept discriminatory treatment.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I put the Congress on notice, we will never--we do not accept the discriminatory treatment in the Franks bill, H.R. 1797 or in the bill that I discussed previously, H.R. 7, to bar abortions in Federal legislation permanently, which somehow tucks the District into a bill on federal funds.

We do not accept and never will accept second-class treatment by the Congress of the United States. We will always protest it, and we will always find a way to find the solid ground that American citizens must stand on to protect their rights.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 266 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, this is a dilatory tactic and has nothing to do with our bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is: Should the House now consider H. Res. 266? While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This is a dilatory tactic.

In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said before. This is a dilatory tactic, and we should be moving on to the resolution.

I thank the gentlewoman for asking the question.

What I think most Americans would wonder, Mr. Speaker, is where is the due process for the millions of babies who are murdered every year in this country by these unconscionable tactics of abortion.

Mr. Speaker, in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 266 provides for a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and general debate for H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today provides for general debate of H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act, also known as the FARRM Bill. This legislation provides for a 5-year authorization of Federal agriculture and nutrition policy.

H.R. 1947 makes necessary reforms and updates to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, previously known as food stamps, as well as Federal agriculture policy. It is important to make commonsense changes to these programs to ensure their viability and that they remain targeted to those most in need of assistance. This year's version of the farm bill has gone through regular order, including numerous hearings at the Agriculture Committee, a full committee markup and amendment process.

Additionally, the Rules Committee has received hundreds of amendments from Members seeking to further improve the bill during floor consideration. House Republicans remain committed to an open, transparent process; and I am pleased to say we're continuing that commitment with the consideration and process for the FARRM Bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that my colleague from New York knows this, but I will make sure it gets into the Record.

In the 2007 case of Gonzales v Carhart, the Supreme Court made clear that there is a ``legitimate interest of the government in protecting the life of the fetus that may become a child.'' The Supreme Court has also made clear that ``the government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman,'' and that Congress may show such respect for the unborn through ``specific regulation because it implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition.''

Mr. Speaker, I am really troubled by the fact that so many of my colleagues simply refuse to acknowledge that we're dealing with human life in this situation, in the situation of abortion. My heart goes out to any woman who is facing a situation where they're considering abortion. I think every member of our conference feels that way--men and women. Nobody takes the issue of abortion lightly. Unfortunately, not enough attention is being paid to the unborn child.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield, now, 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Dr.--Congressman--Fleming.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine).

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are accusing us of, we're talking about the beginning of the 6th month of pregnancy. Nothing in this bill has any impact on abortion during the first 20 weeks.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Montana (Mr. Daines).

Madam Speaker, there's a lot of talk about rights here today and very little talk about the right to life for the babies that are being aborted.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

Madam Speaker, this bill is not borne of ignorance but of extremely deep-felt concern for unborn children who suffer pain as they are being murdered.

Madam Speaker, I fear for the conscience of our Nation because the termination of unborn children for any reason is tolerated in some parts of our country throughout pregnancy, even though scientific conclusions show infants feel pain by at least 20 weeks' gestation. That means literally that a baby at the halfway point of a pregnancy will experience pain during the violence of a dismemberment abortion, the most common second-trimester abortion wherein a steel tool severs limbs from the infant and its skull is crushed.

Madam Speaker, it's even difficult for me to describe this procedure without getting emotional. These procedures are horrific, and in terms of pain, like torture to their infant subjects. As

a country, we should leave this practice behind. That's why I'm a cosponsor of the underlying legislation to prohibit elective abortions in the United States past 20 weeks. Since 1973, approximately 52 million--52 million, Madam Speaker--children's lives have been tragically aborted in the United States. It is unconscionable that in America, where we fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we tolerate the systemic extermination of an entire generation of the most vulnerable among us.

H.R. 1797 rejects that hypocrisy and provides commonsense protections for unborn children who feel pain, just as you and I do. My colleague and friend from Arizona, Representative Trent Franks, is a champion for the unborn, and I commend him for authoring this legislation, which prohibits an abortion of an unborn child that has surpassed 20 weeks after fertilization.

In light of the recent conviction of Philadelphia-based, late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who was found guilty of first-degree murder in the case of three babies born alive in his clinic and then killed through a procedure he called ``snipping,'' which involved Gosnell inserting a pair of scissors into the baby's neck and cutting its spinal cord, a procedure that was reportedly routine in his clinic, we cannot stand idly by.

Madam Speaker, some would have us think that Gosnell is an anomaly or an outlier. However, after his conviction, more individuals have stepped forward to expose similar practices in other States. Americans should be asking how different are these snipping procedures from abortions performed throughout clinics in the country. Unfortunately, there is little difference between these procedures. The practice of murdering viable, unborn children who can feel pain must end. I urge my colleagues to join me in speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves and vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Madam Speaker, even Kermit Gosnell's own defense attorney, having gone through all the evidence at trial, said:

I've come out of this case realizing that 24 weeks is a bad

determiner. It should be more like 16, 17 weeks. That would

be a far better thing, and I think the law should be changed

to that. I think pro-choice would have still the right to

choose, but they've got to choose quicker.

We are talking here, Madam Speaker, about the beginning of the 6th month of pregnancy. Nothing in this bill has any impact on abortion during the first 20 weeks.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we will use the balance of our time.

No, Madam Speaker. I'm not just yet ready to close, but if my colleague is ready to close--

Is the gentlewoman from New York ready to close? I thought that was the question she was asking.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, as advances in medical science result in improved treatments and personalized medicine, the development of unborn children is further understood. Doctors can perform lifesaving surgeries on babies still in the womb at earlier points in the pregnancy than ever before.

When a baby is born prematurely, medical innovation is increasing the likelihood of that baby's survival. Babies born as early as 20 weeks post-fertilization are being cared for in neonatal units across the country.

By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. By 20 weeks post-fertilization, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human. The baby responds the same way you and I respond to pain, by recoiling from it.

As Dr. Anand, at the University of Tennessee, who is considered the leading expert in the field of fetal pain, stated in a report accepted by a Federal judge as expert testimony:

It is my opinion that 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.

Surgeons entering the womb to perform corrective procedures on unborn children have seen those babies flinch, jerk, and recoil from sharp objects and injections. Recognizing this discomfort, surgeons routinely administer anesthesia to unborn children in the womb before performing surgeries.

According to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America, babies aborted at 14 weeks or later are often subjected to a painful dismemberment abortion, which involves inserting a long steel tool into the woman and grabbing, usually an arm or a leg, tearing it from the baby's body and pulling it out of the mother. The procedure is repeated as the baby is torn, limb from limb, until his or her entire body has been removed and the head is finally crushed and removed. The dismemberment abortion is the most common method of abortion in the second trimester.

Another abortion procedure involves injecting digoxin and/or potassium chloride into the baby's heart, which induces cardiac arrest, and the baby's killed.

Madam Speaker, it's important that the American people understand exactly what happens when they hear the word ``abortion.'' It is a heart-wrenching, painful procedure that tears a baby limb from limb before crushing his or her head, or it is a poisonous chemical injection.

A March 2013 poll conducted by a 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 included 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.

Madam Speaker, Congress cannot sit idly by while this grotesque and brutal procedure which rips the tiny baby apart limb by limb in the womb is performed in our country. That is why it is necessary for Congress to pass H.R. 1797 and protect the lives of these unborn children from this excruciating pain.

Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a summary of the evidence of the unborn pain research.

Madam Speaker, I now reserve the balance of my time.

Fetal Pain: The Evidence

[From www.doctorsonfetalpain.org, Mar. 14, 2011]

The eleven points below summarize the substantial medical

and scientific evidence that unborn children can feel pain by

20 weeks after fertilization.

1: Pain receptors (nociceptors) are present throughout the unborn child's entire body by no later than 20 weeks after fertilization and

nerves link these receptors to the brain's thalamus and subcortical

plate by no later than 20 weeks after fertilization.

Madam Speaker, as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle know full well and as our colleague from Connecticut has acknowledged, the House has passed a bill to take care of the issue of student loan rates doubling on July 1; however, the Senate has refused to act on the bill. What we passed was what the President asked for in his budget, and he has suddenly flip-flopped on the issue and doesn't support it anymore.

The House has done its job. We're now waiting for the Senate and the President to acknowledge that they have a responsibility in this area. We've not been frivolous about this. We are not ignoring the issue.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to point out that none of the Members on the other side of the aisle have even acknowledged the pain that unborn children feel or the fact that half of those babies that are being murdered are little girls.

Madam Speaker, life is the most fundamental of all rights. It's sacred and God-given. But millions of babies have been robbed of that right in this, the freest country in the world. This is a tragedy beyond words and a betrayal of what we, as a Nation, stand for.

Before liberty, equality, free speech, freedom of conscience, pursuit of happiness, and justice for all, there has to be life. And yet, for millions of aborted infants--many pain-capable and many discriminated against because of gender or disability--life is exactly what they've 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 America's history. But until that day, it remains a solemn duty to stand up for life.

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.

Madam Speaker, we go to extraordinary lengths to save not only human beings, but even animals 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 more than 1 million unborn babies every year.

There is nothing more important than protecting voiceless, unborn children and their families from the travesty of abortion. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for life by voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my friend the majority leader, Mr. Cantor from Virginia, for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come.

Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman for his kindness. The American public must be thinking Geminis are, indeed, schizophrenic. I thank my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his good wishes. I thank him for the information. If I can ask him a question initially about the farm bill, which has obviously been very controversial in the past, still remains controversial in many ways, and I'm wondering, in light of the fact that the Senate passed a farm bill in a pretty bipartisan way, 66- 27, with 18 Republicans voting in favor, but I know the Speaker has observed the divisions within the Republican Conference, and obviously there are some divisions within our caucus as well, and I'm wondering whether or not in fact the gentleman is confident that we will get to completion and a vote on the farm bill next week.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comment. As the gentleman knows, on our side of the aisle, there is very significant concern about the status of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and I would hope that as a rule is considered on that bill, I don't know whether the gentleman knows at this point in time, that we would have an opportunity to have a significant number of amendments on that bill to reflect the House working its will, as the Speaker has so often observed, and I yield to my friend for whatever information he may have. I know that the rule has not been written, and I don't know whether he has any insights on how much flexibility there will be on the rule.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that and look forward to that because I know on both sides of the aisle, this is a bill that has strong feelings among different perspectives on this bill and with respect to different subjects. And so I think as open a rule process and debate process as is possible will be helpful to the final product. I would hope that we can follow that.

Mr. Leader, you mentioned the Unborn Pain bill. I understand and I have some information that says that the text of that bill coming out of committee may be modified in the Rules Committee. Is the gentleman aware of that? And if so, is the gentleman aware of what textual change there may be from the bill that was reported out of the committee?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman. His comment reflects what I've heard. There is a lot of discussion going on about this. Hopefully we would get significant notice of what changes there might be. Can the gentleman tell me, would it be safe to assume that this bill will be considered, when and if considered, no earlier than Wednesday, and will be considered Wednesday and Thursday? And I say that, I will tell you, some of my Members who are very concerned about this bill are very concerned about when it might be brought up, the timing from their perspectives. This is a very serious piece of legislation, as the gentleman knows, again from all perspectives, and I would hope that this bill would be, in light of the fact that the Rules Committee will probably deal with it--I'm not sure whether they'll deal with it on Tuesday; my presumption is they'll deal with it on Tuesday--but there will be time for proponents and opponents of whatever changes might be recommended to prepare their arguments for the floor.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that answer, and I thank him for the fact that you will be following the notice rule that has been discussed. I would ask the majority leader, could I be confident in advising people who are very focused on this bill, that if they are here Wednesday, that they will be in time to consider that bill? In other words, do you expect that the Rules Committee would consider this bill before tonight?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his answer. So that in an abundance of caution, proponents or opponents would need to be here by Tuesday. I thank him for that answer.

Let me ask an additional thing that is similar to my question on the farm bill. We are very, very hopeful that the bill we have just been discussing, whether it's considered Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, is subject to a somewhat open rule. I don't expect it to be fully open, but that amendments will be made in order. There are very strong feelings on both sides. That's why the gentleman has indicated there's a lot of discussion going on on his side and on my side. I would hope that we have the ability again for the House to work its will and that we would have the ability to offer such amendments as would be relevant, and important amendments, not specious amendments but very important amendments, to be considered by the House, and I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman, and I feel constrained to add, however, on the defense bill that we just considered, yes, it was bipartisan to the extent that both sides agreed on a formulation on the sexual assault issue within the military.

Very frankly, there were two very substantive, widely supported, widely discussed amendments that were requested, one by Ms. Speier from California and one by Ms. Gabbard from Hawaii. Neither one of those was made an amendment so that the only alternative that we had available to us was the committee agreed-upon alternative with respect to sexual assault complaints that women in the military or men in the military might have.

Then a very substantive and, I thought, well-thought out motion to recommit, which was deemed by the individual on your side of the aisle who opposed it, in an almost cursory fashion, less than, I think, 120 seconds, dismissed as a procedural motion.

With all due respect to the majority leader, and it was not the majority leader, obviously, it was anything but a procedural motion. It was a very substantive motion. It would have, in my opinion--of course we can differ on that, but my opinion, would have made a very positive improvement in the piece of legislation we were considering.

Now, I voted for the piece of legislation, the defense bill. I've never voted against a defense authorization in my career here. The national security of our Nation is critically important.

But we had somebody offer that amendment who served in the military, who gave two of her legs for our country, and who has been honored for her service, both in the military, as an officer, a helicopter pilot, and for her service to veterans, both in Illinois and in our country. And very frankly, that was rejected as a procedural motion.

I understand the gentleman's representation that we follow the tradition of giving a full and fair--but if, I say, with all due respect to the majority leader, if the motions to recommit are to be considered simply as procedural motions, which the gentleman will observe we did not do when we were in the majority, we understand, and some of our Members understood, that these amendments made a difference.

And once we got rid of the procedural impediment that a motion to recommit would send the bill back to committee, which is no longer the case, then we should consider very legitimate alternatives on a substantive basis, not the procedural objections that we were confronted with today.

I say that all to say this is a critically important bill, very strong feelings on all sides, and I would--the gentleman has said this, and I take him at his word, that we allow alternatives to be considered on this floor as amendments that are not perceived as procedural, but are perceived as substantive attempts to improve, from the offerer of the amendment's perspective, the piece of legislation before us.

If the gentleman wants to make any additional comments, I'll yield.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I understand that you do view the motion to recommit as procedural. We disagree on that.

The motion would make a substantive difference in the piece of legislation. It would have set up a different scenario. To that extent, it was clearly substantive and not procedural; and it would have, I think, comported with, from many on our side's perspective, a better process to protect women and men from arbitrary and perhaps, at some point in time, unfair treatment and would give them a choice of what avenue they would pursue to protect themselves.

And as Ms. Duckworth, Captain Duckworth, Congresswoman Duckworth so aptly stated, would give more confidence, particularly to women, but men and women entering into the service that they would be protected.

We don't need to debate the substance of the issue, simply to say that giving us the alternative, and the MTR gave us the alternative, but it was not considered, on your side, as a substantive alternative.

Therefore, my point being, on the bill that we're talking about, the Pain Bill, referred to shorthand as the Pain Bill, that we be given substantive amendments that are not perceived as procedural, so that the House, not 20 percent of the House--the Armed Services Committee is less than 20 percent of the House--not the Armed Services Committee, or any committee, for that matter, dispose of the issue and preclude the other 80 percent of us from participating in making that decision.

So I would urge my friend to urge the Rules Committee and the leadership, of which the gentleman is a principal leader, to allow substantive amendments, good-faith amendments to be made in order.

Two more things if I can, unless the gentleman wants to say something further. Let me say something on immigration reform. Paul Ryan, leader on your side, a Vice Presidential candidate, said of the bipartisan effort in the Senate on immigration, he said, ``I do support what they're doing. I think they've put out a good product. It's good policy.'' That was reported on June 6 of this year in The Hill newspaper.

Immigration, obviously, nor did I expect it to be on the list for next week. But I want to ask the gentleman--in light of the fact that comprehensive immigration reform, by many on both sides of the aisle, including Mr. Ryan, but obviously in a bipartisan way in the United States Senate, has been something that's been viewed as a priority item--can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is a near-term, and by ``near-term,'' I mean prior to the August break, expectation that we will have any movement in this House on immigration reform?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for those comments, and I look forward to us doing that and, hopefully, doing so in a bipartisan fashion because he and I both agree that the system is broken, needs to be fixed.

And my view, and I think the view of many, and certainly the Senators who came together and offered the bill that's now being considered on the Senate floor, believe that a comprehensive plan was the best answer. And I agree with that.

Lastly, if I can ask the majority leader, the student loan program, which has capped interest on student loans at 3.4 percent, expires the end of this month, and therefore we're weeks away from having a substantial increase, a doubling of student loan costs.

The President has a proposal. We passed a proposal through this House, as you know, Mr. Leader. Both of those proposals were defeated on the Senate floor for lack of 60 votes. The Senate alternative, which Mr. Bishop has now introduced, got 51 votes, but neither of them got 60 votes.

Can the gentleman tell me whether or not--it's not on the calendar for next week--there's any plan to address the issue, beyond what we've already done and which has been rejected in the Senate, to ensure that students do not see a doubling of interest rates in the near future?

And I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you know--and I'm sure the American public knows as well, Mr. Speaker--the reason the Senate hasn't acted is because, although they have a majority for an alternative, frankly, they can't get cloture. They can't get 60 votes. Frankly, Mr. Reid doesn't have 60 votes in order to move legislation.

So, while it's well and good to say that we have acted, we have acted on a vehicle that the Senate has rejected. And they've rejected our alternative as well. They didn't reject it by a majority vote. A majority voted for our alternative. Frankly, the House would not be able to act if 60 percent of the House were necessary to pass something, and the majority leader and I both know that. We would be in gridlock. Frankly, I think it's unfortunate the Senate has a rule which allows a minority to control. I think that's not good for the country, I think it's not good for democracy, and I think it is not good for policy. I think that's demonstrable and, unfortunately, being experienced by the American people.

But I would hope that within the next 2 weeks, or 8 legislative days that we have left, that the gentleman's efforts will bear fruit and that we can do something--not that we'll beat ourselves on the chest and say the House acted.

That's the problem with the sequester. The House acted in the last Congress, and we're not acting now because a bill that's dead and gone and cannot be resurrected was passed in the last Congress as a pretense of--not a pretense. It was real at the time, but now claiming that that is the reason we're not acting on the sequester. Hopefully, that will not be the reason we do not act on the student loan.

I thank the gentleman for his efforts at wanting to get us to a compromise which will assure that students do not see, on July 1, an increase in their interest rates.

Unless the gentleman wants to make additional comments, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Well, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I don't often do this, but I'm going to step away from my prepared remarks just a moment and express a sincere gratitude to Congressman Chris Smith.

Mr. Speaker, years ago, when I came to Washington the very first time, it was on a weekend. I couldn't come here and visit the Congress, but I came to the congressional halls of where their offices were. There were two offices that I visited. One was the late Henry Hyde--one of the greatest human beings to ever sit in this place--and the other was Chris Smith. I just have to say to you--I know it embarrasses him terribly, but this is my heart--I believe this man to be truly one of the greatest heroes in this Congress. All the 30-plus years that he has been here, he has given everything he had to protect little children who couldn't vote for him.

I am just convinced, in the councils of eternity, that someone is going to look him in the eyes one day when he crosses over that threshold and say, ``Well done.'' And I am just grateful that we have men like that here.

Mr. Speaker, Daniel Webster once said:

Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the

Republic for which it stands. For miracles do not cluster--

and America is a miracle, Mr. Speaker. For miracles do not

cluster, and what has happened once in 6,000 years may never

happen again. So hold on to the Constitution. For if the

American Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy

throughout the world.

Our Founding Fathers wrote the words of our Constitution down for us because they didn't want us to forget their true meaning or to otherwise fall prey to those who would deliberately

undermine or destroy it. This has always been the preeminent reason why we write down documents or agreements or declarations or constitutions in the first place, to preserve their original meaning and intent.

Mr. Speaker, it really causes us to ask ourselves the question: Why was all of this effort made? Why are we really here in this Chamber?

And I would suggest to you that if we simply avail ourselves of the most cursory glance of the Founding Fathers, we are all here to protect the lives of Americans and their constitutional rights. And protecting the lives of Americans and their constitutional rights is the reason Congress exists in the first place.

The phrases in the Fifth and the 14th Amendments capsulate our entire Constitution when they proclaim that ``no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.'' It's that simple. Those words are a crystal clear reflection of our Constitution and the proclamation that the Declaration of Independence put forward to all of us when it declared that ``all men''--and I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that's all little babies too--``are created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' Those words are the essence of America, and our commitment to them for more than two centuries has set America apart as the flagship of human freedom in the world. It has made us the ``unipolar superpower'' of this planet, and yet unspeakable suffering and tragedy have occurred whenever we have strayed from those foundational words.

Our own United States Supreme Court did exactly that, Mr. Speaker, when they ruled that millions of men, women, and children were not persons under the Constitution because their skin was the wrong color. It took a horrible Civil War and the deaths of over 600,000 Americans to reverse that unspeakable tragedy. And we saw that same arrogance in 1973 when the Supreme Court said ``the unborn child was not a person under the Constitution.'' And we have since witnessed the silent deaths of now over 55 million innocent little boys and baby girls who died without the protection of the Constitution, the protection that the Constitution gave them, and without the protection this Congress should have had the courage to defend.

Mr. Speaker, the recent trial of Kermit Gosnell has played an instrumental role in exposing late-term abortions for what they really are--relocated infanticide. Kermit Gosnell is this now famous late-term abortionist convicted of murder, in part, for using scissors to cut the spinal cords of numerous little babies who had survived abortion attempts. One of his employees said that in one case that there was this little baby that had been so damaged by the process that it no longer had eyes or a mouth, but she could hear him screeching and making this sound like a little alien.

I know sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we deliberately try to hide those things from our minds. I know I do. But once in awhile it's important just to think on the life of this one little child that was only in this world outside the womb for a few minutes and found nothing but horror and suffering, not knowing why, not knowing what the purpose or the reason was, and no one was there. I just have to say to you, Mr. Speaker, if that isn't wrong, then we can absolve ourselves forever because nothing is wrong. Had Kermit Gosnell done the same thing mere moments before when that little baby was still inside the womb, in many States in this union, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, it would have been entirely legal.

We've seen similarly other late-term abortionists across this country exposed for such incomprehensibly barbaric practices. LeRoy Carhart in Maryland compared a ``baby in the womb before an abortion'' to ``meat in a crock pot.''

Abortion clinic employees in Arizona explained to a woman seeking an abortion at 24 weeks that ``sometimes they are sometimes alive, yeah, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it''--the baby--``will come out whole.''

Douglas Karpen in Texas has been accused by four separate employees of killing three to four born-alive babies per day by either cutting their spinal cords, forcing instruments in their soft spots on their heads, or twisting their heads off, completely off of their necks with his bare hands.

Very simply, Mr. Speaker, the public is beginning to learn that there are scores of other Kermit Gosnells out there. He was not an aberration. One of the saddest things that we must not miss here, is that as evil as this man was, and the horrible things that he did, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, they are not uncommon in America. And because of this, Americans are beginning to realize that somehow we are bigger than abortion on demand, and that 55 million dead children are enough.

We are beginning to ask the real question: Does abortion take the life of a child? Mr. Speaker, that is the question that I would put before all of my colleagues and anyone in the sound of my voice, to ask themselves in their heart--put aside the rationalization just for a moment and ask yourself: Does abortion take the life of a child? If it does not, I'm willing to walk out of here and never mention the subject again. But if abortion really does kill a little baby, if it really does, then those of us sitting here in the seat of freedom, in the greatest, the most powerful Nation in the history of humanity, also find ourselves standing in the midst of the greatest human genocide in the history of the world.

Throughout America's history, the hearts of the American people have always been moved with compassion when they discover a theretofore hidden class of victims. Once the humanity of the victim and the inhumanity of what is being done to them finally becomes clear in their minds, America changes their heart.

I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, America is on the cusp of another such realization. And I fear if we fail to respond this time--because after this, after Kermit Gosnell, no excuse remains, we have seen the worst--if we do not respond, then we will slide into that Sumerian darkness where the light of human compassion has gone out and where the survival of the fittest has prevailed over humanity, and it must not happen on our watch in this generation.

Medical science regarding the development of unborn babies and their capacities at various stages of growth has advanced dramatically, and it incontrovertibly demonstrates that unborn children clearly do experience pain. The single greatest hurdle to legislation like H.R. 3803 has always been that opponents deny unborn babies feel pain at all, as if somehow the ability to feel pain magically develops instantaneously as a child passes through the birth canal.

Mr. Speaker, this level of deliberate ignorance might have found excuse in earlier eras of human history, but the evidence available to us today is extensive and irrefutable: unborn children have the capacity to experience pain, at least by 20 weeks and, as Congressman Smith said, very likely substantially earlier.

This information, Mr. Speaker, is at www.doctorsonfetalpain.org. I would sincerely recommend to anyone in this Chamber that is interested to really know the truth to go there and find out for themselves, rather than to have their understanding cemented in some earlier time when scientists still believed in spontaneous generation, and that the Earth was flat. That is the invincible ignorance sometimes that we find ourselves trying to break through on this seminal civil rights issue of our time.

Most Americans think that late-term abortions are rare, but in fact there are approximately 120,000 late-term abortions in America every year, or more than 325 late-term abortions every day in America. Mr. Speaker, I believe we're better than that. We're better than 325 late- term abortions every day in this country. I believe that we're better than dismembering babies who can feel pain at every agonizing moment. And I sincerely hope that we can at the very least come together to agree that we can draw a line in the sand at that point. That we can agree that knowingly subjecting our innocent unborn children to dismemberment in the womb, particularly when they have developed to the point when they can feel excruciating pain every

terrible moment leading up to their undeserved deaths, belies everything America was called to be. This is not who we are.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing to babies is real. It is barbaric in the purest sense of the word. It is the greatest human rights violation occurring on U.S. soil, and it has already victimized millions of pain- capable babies since the Supreme Court gave us all abortion-on-demand that tragic day in 1973.

Thomas Jefferson said that the care of human life and its happiness and not its destruction is the chief and only object of good government. And ladies and gentlemen, using taxpayer dollars to fund the killing of innocent unborn children does not liberate their mothers. It leaves their mothers oftentimes with the brokenness and the emotional consequences without anyone there to really recognize what they have dealt with. It is not the cause for which those lying out under the white stones in Arlington National Cemetery died, and it is not good government.

Abraham Lincoln called upon all of us to remember America's Founding Fathers and their enlightened belief that nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into this world to be trodden on or degraded and imbruded by its fellows.

He reminded those he called posterity--those, us--that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest should set up a doctrine that some were not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that their posterity--that is us, ladies and gentlemen-- might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began.

Mr. Speaker, may that be the commitment to all of us today.