Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 38 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

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

House Resolution 38 provides for a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 161, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act.

The rule before us today, Mr. Speaker, provides for consideration of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. It is truly fitting that the House considers this legislation in the shadow of the 42nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions that gave Americans abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy.

This legislation is a commonsense step in recognizing the truth that science has made more clear with the passage of time: the unborn child in the womb is alive and a functioning member of the human family.

Science has shown us that the most fundamental precursors to an unborn child feeling pain are already in place by 8 weeks in development. Necessary connections between the brain and spinal cord are in place and complete by 18 weeks.

The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony by expert physicians that the earlier premature babies are delivered, the more acutely they feel pain. It is clear that unborn children at 20 weeks of development are capable of feeling pain and deserving of protection.

In spite of the 60 percent of Americans who believe we should limit abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will continue to protest this sensible legislation, seeking to keep us in the company of only seven other nations that allow elective abortion after 20 weeks, which includes such well-known human rights leaders as North Korea, China, and Vietnam.

This vital, lifesaving legislation is not the only important legislation the House will consider this week. This rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 161, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act.

The Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act recognizes the positive impact America's shale revolution has had on energy prices and the potential it holds to lower them further. We are in the midst of another hard winter, and red tape reduction is necessary to ensure we have the infrastructure needed to ensure low-cost natural gas is able to reach our coldest States when they need it most without price shocks or shortages.

H.R. 161 introduces critical reform to ensure prompt consideration of necessary permitting requests for construction or updates to natural gas pipelines, providing certainty to energy companies and the consumers they serve.

The legislation would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve or deny a requested pipeline certificate no later than 12 months after receiving a complete application that is ready to be processed and has engaged in the prefiling process.

H.R. 161 also ensures that relevant agencies provide approval or denial within 90 days of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission completing its final environmental document.

Finally, the legislation would put permits into effect, notwithstanding agencies' failures to provide approval within the time mandated, with allowances for the addition of conditions consistent with the final environmental document.

H.R. 161 is the reintroduction of H.R. 1900, which passed this House on a bipartisan basis in the 113th Congress. H.R. 1900 received extensive committee consideration, including numerous hearings on the underlying issues, prompting the legislation, as well as the subcommittee hearing and subcommittee and full committee markups on the bill.

Both H.R. 36 and H.R. 161 are truly important legislation that Americans would be well-served to have considered this week, and I commend both my bills to my colleagues as deserving of their support.

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

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

I need to remind this House that during the Democrats' time in the majority, there were two rules packages providing consideration of seven unrelated measures.

In the 110th Congress, their first year in the majority, the rules package provided for consideration of five measures.

In the 111th Congress, the Democrat majority provided for the consideration of two separate measures in the rules package.

The Democrat majority went directly to the floor with these bills, with no committee consideration and without even allowing the Rules Committee to debate these measures or report an appropriate rule for consideration.

In the 110th Congress, Ranking Member Slaughter and Democrats on the Rules Committee reported three additional closed rules, starting the Congress out with eight closed rules in the opening weeks.

In the 111th Congress, Democrats reported out two additional closed rules, for a total of four closed rules in the opening weeks of that Congress.

Unlike our Democrat colleagues, the Speaker and Chairman Sessions had provided the opportunity to have hearings before the Rules Committee.

It is our goal to return to regular order now that our committees are organizing, but the false attacks by my colleagues do not stand up to the light of day when you compare our records.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the preeminent defenders of life in this Congress.

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

Once again, we find ourselves in a position in which we must correct the record.

Over the last 4 years, Republicans have implemented reforms to make the U.S. House of Representatives more open and transparent than ever. Under this GOP majority, Members on both sides of the aisle have been allowed to offer significantly more amendments--and the House has operated under far more open rules--than were allowed under the previous Democrat-controlled House.

The GOP majority allowed nearly 1,500 amendments to be considered on the House floor in the 113th Congress. Under Speaker Pelosi, the House did not consider a single bill under an open rule throughout the 111th Congress. That is the definition of a closed process, Mr. Speaker, and it is precisely what Speaker Boehner successfully changed to start the 112th Congress and to continue throughout the 113th Congress. Under the current GOP majority, the House has considered 38 open or modified open rules.

When you compare the record of the Republican majority and the most recent Democrat majority, any fair analysis will show that Republicans are running a more open, transparent House of Representatives that allows for greater participation by all Members.

The problem throughout the last Congress resided in the Senate and its failure to act on almost everything passed by the House. When the Senate did decide to act, then-majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid, virtually locked down the amendment process on the Senate floor. When you compare the nearly 1,500 amendments considered on the House floor with the Senate's record of inaction, a more accurate picture emerges.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

I will not yield.

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

The gentleman from Massachusetts knows very well that the number of closed rules last Congress was a procedural effect of Republicans' efforts to reopen the government. America tires of this debate. Let's return to real issues with an impact on Americans' lives.

Mr. Speaker, we go to extraordinary lengths in this country to save the lives of born human beings because we value life so much. However, there are many who do not hold the unborn in the same esteem, and that is tragic for the more than 1 million unborn babies who lose their lives every year. There is nothing more important than protecting voiceless unborn children and their families from the travesty of abortion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to respond to the charge that this legislation is unconstitutional. In 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act as an appropriate use of Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause. This legislation follows that act's model by asserting Congress' authority to extend protection to pain-capable unborn children under the Commerce, Equal Protection, Due Process, and Enforcement Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

It is sad that opponents of this legislation are attempting to use the Constitution as a roadblock to prevent lifesaving legislation, but the Supreme Court's position is clear.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

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

It is disappointing to hear my colleagues criticize this legislation in this way. We consider many weighty issues in this body with great implications for our future, but few of those issues command our attention as much as those that impact children, as this legislation does. This is right and appropriate.

I fear for both our future and our present if we continue to tolerate the death of innocent children in the womb. Every life matters. It is my hope that a culture of life will take hold and all children will be protected in law in the near future, but today we have an opportunity to come together and find consensus that nearly fully developed, viable children should be protected, particularly as individuals capable of experiencing great pain.

The necessity of that protection is made even clearer when considering the type of abortion these growing children are subjected to.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that the American people understand exactly what happens when they hear the word ``abortion.'' According to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America, babies aborted at 14 weeks or later are often subjected to dismemberment abortions, which are incredibly gruesome and painful.

What follows is heart-wrenching to describe, Mr. Speaker, but we must face the truth of what we are currently permitting. As if in a horror movie, the abortionist begins by suctioning out the amniotic fluid, then rips the limbs from the infant's body with a steel tool and finishes by crushing the skull of the infant he has dismembered.

Take a moment to consider that. This is the most common abortion performed in the second trimester, not a rare tragedy.

As a Nation, we rightfully give the safety of our children the highest importance. In spite of that, we continue to allow these horrific procedures that an overwhelming majority of nations in the world have sworn off. As I mentioned before, only seven nations allow elective abortions after 20 weeks' gestation.

How can America continue to be one of them? We must leave this practice behind.

That is why I am a cosponsor of the underlying legislation to prohibit elective abortions in the United States past 20 weeks. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a commonsense reform to our American principles of protecting life as the most fundamental constitutional right.

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

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

Thankfully, the American people recognize that we are speaking about protecting vulnerable lives here. A March 2013 poll conducted by The Polling Company found that 64 percent of the public supports a law like the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibiting an abortion after 20 weeks, when an unborn baby can feel pain, unless the life of the mother is in danger.

Supporters include 47 percent of those who identified themselves as ``pro-choice'' in the poll. The poll also found that 63 percent of women believe that abortion should not be permitted after the point where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel pain. That finding was not an unusual outlier. It is representative of the true beliefs of the American people.

According to a 2013 Gallup Poll, 64 percent of Americans support prohibiting second trimester abortions, and 80 percent support prohibiting third trimester abortions. Even The Huffington Post found in 2013 that 59 percent of Americans support limiting abortions after 20 weeks.

Let no one believe that our concern is only for the child. A study in the Obstetrics and Gynecology journal found that a woman seeking an abortion after 20 weeks' gestation is 35 times more likely to die from an abortion than she would have been from an abortion in the first trimester. At 21 weeks or more, she is 91 times more likely to die. Abortion is a danger to both lives, the mother and the child.

Mr. Speaker, Congress cannot sit idly by while this grotesque and brutal procedure, which rips the tiny baby apart, limb from limb in the womb, and threatens the life of the mother, is performed in our country. This is why it is necessary for Congress to pass H.R. 36 and protect the lives of these unborn children from excruciating pain.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time at this time until the gentleman from Massachusetts is ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to whether the gentleman from Massachusetts is prepared to close.

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

As I said at the opening of this debate, this rule will provide for consideration of H.R. 161, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act. That legislation, which passed the House on a bipartisan basis last Congress, will reduce red tape and ensure that Americans in all parts of the country will be able to benefit from the energy revolution that has occurred on our Nation's private lands.

It is the coldest season of the year. It is my strong hope that we will be able to enact this legislation soon, to ensure that in winters to come residents of the northeast and other high-cost areas of the country are able to heat their homes affordably.

Before we consider our budgets or the foolishness of red tape, though, we must return to our founding principles. We must remember that life is the most fundamental of all rights. It is sacred and God- given.

Even the President said in last night's speech: ``I want our actions to tell every child, in every neighborhood: Your life matters, and we are committed to improving your life chances, as committed as we are to working on behalf of our own kids.''

But, Mr. Speaker, millions of babies have been robbed of that right in this, the freest country in the world. That is a tragedy beyond words and a betrayal of what we, as a nation, stand for.

Before liberty, equality, free speech, freedom of conscience, the pursuit of happiness, and justice for all, there has to be life; and yet for millions of aborted infants, life is exactly what they have been denied. An affront to life for some is an affront to life for every one of us.

One day, we hope it will be different. We hope life will cease to be valued on a sliding scale. We hope the era of elective abortions, ushered in by an unelected Court, will be closed and collectively deemed one of the darkest chapters in American history. But until that day, it remains a solemn duty to stand up for life.

Regardless of the length of this journey, we will continue to speak for those who cannot, and we will continue to pray to the One who can change the hearts of those in desperation and those in power who equally hold the lives of the innocent in their hands.

May we, in love, defend the unborn; may we, in humility, confront this national sin; and may we mourn what abortion reveals about the conscience of our Nation. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for life by voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 42 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 42 provides for a closed rule allowing consideration of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

Since 1973, at least 52 million children's lives have been tragically taken by abortion in the United States. It is unconscionable that in America, where we fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we tolerate this systematic extermination of an entire generation of the most vulnerable among us.

In the midst of that darkness, there has been one area of consensus, Mr. Speaker: protecting taxpayers from paying for a practice they sincerely oppose. Since 1976, the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the Federal funding of abortions, has been included in relevant appropriations bills. Each year it has been consistently renewed and supported by congressional majorities and Presidents of both parties.

NARAL, an abortion advocacy group, has suggested that prohibiting public funds for abortion reduces abortion rates by roughly 50 percent. That means that half of the women who would have otherwise had a publicly funded abortion end up carrying their baby to term.

In 1993, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Hyde amendment prevented as many as 675,000 abortions every single year. That means that millions of Americans are alive today because of the Hyde amendment. After 38 years, it is time for this lifesaving amendment to become permanent law.

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, a myriad of long-established laws, including the Hyde amendment, created a mostly uniform policy that Federal programs did not pay for abortion or subsidize health plans that included coverage of abortion, with only narrow exceptions.

Unfortunately, ObamaCare destroyed that longstanding policy, bypassing the Hyde amendment restriction and paving the way for publicly funded abortions. The President's health care law authorized massive Federal subsidies to assist millions of Americans to purchase private health plans that will cover abortions on demand. In other words, Mr. Speaker, hard-earned taxpayer dollars are now being used to pay for elective abortions. This is simply unacceptable.

H.R. 7 will codify the principles of the Hyde amendment on a permanent, governmentwide basis, which means that it will apply to longstanding Federal health programs such as Medicaid, SCHIP, and Federal employees' health benefits, as well as to new programs created by ObamaCare.

H.R. 7 prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortions. It does so by, one, prohibiting all Federal funding for abortions; two, prohibiting Federal subsidies for ACA health care plans that include coverage for abortion; three, prohibiting the use of Federal facilities for abortion; and four, prohibiting Federal employees from performing abortions.

This commonsense measure, which restores a longstanding bipartisan agreement, protects the unborn and prevents taxpayers from being forced to fund thousands of abortions.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote to respect our Nation's consensus on abortion funding and affirm life by voting in favor of this rule and H.R. 7.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, this legislation is identical to H.R. 7, which passed the House last Congress after moving through regular order, including a full committee markup.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the strongest champions of life in this House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Dr. Babin.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Benishek.

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

H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, codifies many longstanding pro-life protections that have been passed under both Republican- and Democrat-controlled Congresses. The majority of taxpayers oppose Federal funding for abortion, as demonstrated in poll after poll:

A recent Marist poll showed that 58 percent of respondents oppose or strongly oppose using any tax dollars for abortions;

During the ObamaCare debate, a 2010 Zogby/O'Leary poll found that 76 percent of Americans said that Federal funds should never pay for an abortion or should pay only to save the life of the mother;

A January 2010 Quinnipiac University poll showed that 67 percent of respondents opposed the Federal funding of abortion;

An April 2011 CNN poll showed that 61 percent of respondents opposed public funding for abortion;

A November 2009 Washington Post poll showed that 61 percent of respondents opposed government subsidies for health insurance that include abortion;

A September 2009 International Communications Research poll showed that 67 percent of respondents opposed any measure that would ``require people to pay for abortion coverage with their Federal taxes.''

In other words, Madam Speaker, the American people do not want the government spending their hard-earned tax dollars to destroy innocent human life--period.

Like most taxpayers, employers also prefer plans that preclude abortion coverage. According to the insurance industry's trade association, ``Most insurers offer plans that include abortion coverage, but most employers choose not to offer it as part of their benefits packages.''

Even Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has voted numerous times to prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion in the District of Columbia. President Obama voted against the taxpayer funding of abortion in the District of Columbia twice when he was in the Senate, and since being elected, he has signed appropriations legislation into law that prohibits this funding.

As you can see, Madam Speaker, opposition to taxpayer funding for abortion is bipartisan, bicameral, and is supported by the majority of the American people. It is time to restore the status quo on the government funding of abortion and make this widely supported policy permanent across the Federal Government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and H.R. 7.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

I want to say as forcefully as I can that there is nothing in H.R. 7 that restricts the private sale of plans that include abortion. There is nothing in H.R. 7 that restricts the private sale of plans that include abortion. Consistent with the Hyde amendment, the bill ensures that Federal dollars--wherever those Federal dollars come from--do not subsidize plans that cover abortion.

What is important to explain is that the Hyde amendment has only in the past applied to annual appropriations bills. As we have done our best to explain to the American people, ObamaCare is not subject to annual appropriations bills but is funded under mandatory spending. Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is important that we codify that no Federal funds can be used for abortions. That is what this bill does.

If our colleagues believe it is unnecessary, then they should have no problem voting for it because, then, it is not doing anything that violates what has been done in the past. However, this bill is necessary. Let me say again, Madam Speaker, that H.R. 7 simply codifies the longstanding bipartisan agreement that Federal taxpayer funding should not be used to destroy innocent life.

H.R. 7 does so by establishing a permanent, governmentwide prohibition on taxpayer subsidies for abortion and abortion coverage, including cutting off taxpayer funding for plans that include abortion under ObamaCare;

It prevents funding for abortion in government programs like Medicaid, the Federal Health Benefits Program, and the Children's Health Insurance Program;

The bill also ensures that subsidies made available in the form of refundable tax credits under the ACA are prevented from flowing to plans that include abortion;

H.R. 7 also explicitly states that private individuals may purchase separate abortion coverage or plans that include abortion as long as no Federal subsidies are used to pay for the abortion coverage. Similarly, H.R. 7 explicitly states that insurance companies may offer abortion coverage as long as the coverage is not paid for by using taxpayer dollars.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

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

The passage of H.R. 7 will be welcome news for the majority of Americans who do not want their tax dollars paying for the grisly business of abortion. This bill will make existing policies like the Hyde amendment permanent and will rid ObamaCare of its massive expansion of public funding for abortion insurance plans.

The President repeatedly assured Americans that ObamaCare would ``maintain current Hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extend those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges.'' Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, that promise didn't pan out. It now joins ``if you like your plan, you can keep it'' in President Obama's panoply of broken promises.

Madam Speaker, today, hundreds of thousands of Americans are coming to Washington, D.C., to brave the cold and march for life. Participants hail from all 50 States, have various religions, and are from all different walks of life and ages. But the one thing they have in common is the shared dedication to protecting the unborn.

The March for Life gives a voice to the voiceless and sends a powerful message to the Representatives of the people assembled here in Congress. It is heartening that so many Americans of different backgrounds are willing to take a stand for life.

Madam Speaker, this is not a partisan issue and this is not a partisan bill. H.R. 7 reflects the bipartisan, bicameral agreement that our government should not be in the business of subsidizing abortions. This is not a radical idea. It is a commonsense proposal that codifies a longstanding compromise. Therefore, I again urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and H.R. 7.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

While it is true that the Hyde amendment and its companion amendments have been renewed every year, recent implementation of the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, has ignored these restrictions. Rather than renewing various amendments each year, we should make the prohibition on Federal abortion funding permanent and governmentwide.

Additionally, provisions contained in the Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act have been included in H.R. 7. These provisions require the exchanges to prominently display, one, whether a plan provides for abortion coverage; and, two, if it does, the amount of the abortion surcharge that the consumer is required to pay.

Unfortunately, for most consumers, finding out if the plans on their State's exchange or the Federal marketplace covers abortion is nearly impossible because the information is not consistently available.

Knowing whether these plans cover abortion is absolutely critical to many consumers because plans that cover elective abortion are required by law to impose a mandatory monthly abortion surcharge.

These surcharges are not optional. Once you sign up for a plan with abortion coverage, you must pay the surcharge. This means that, potentially, many Americans who strongly oppose elective abortion could be unknowingly contributing to the practice financially.

Madam Speaker, that simply isn't right. H.R. 7 will stop funding for plans that cover elective abortion under ObamaCare and ensure that abortion coverage and the accompanying surcharge are made transparent to the American people.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and H.R. 7, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that it is clear some of our colleagues have not read the bill or have not listened to the debate. This bill does not prohibit women from purchasing abortion coverage with their own money.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

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

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

One day, we hope it will be different. We hope life will cease to be valued on a sliding scale. We hope the era of elective abortions, ushered in by an unelected court, will be closed and collectively deemed one of the darkest chapters in American history, but until that day, it remains a solemn duty to stand up for life.

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.

Madam Speaker, the commonsense measure before us restores an important, longstanding, bipartisan agreement that protects the unborn and prevents taxpayers from being forced to finance thousands of elective abortions. It reflects the will of the American people and is the product of what has historically been a bipartisan, bicameral consensus in Congress. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and H.R. 7.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, while I have great respect for the gentlewoman from North Carolina, I don't have a lot of respect for this process. I would like to begin today by saying a word or two about the process being used by the Republicans here on the floor--actually, three words: ``It stinks. Again.''

We are all very happy--delighted even--to hear our Republican friends say that they wanted to make this Congress into a place where we could work together, but actions speak louder than words, and here are some of their actions: five closed rules.

Until yesterday, 100 percent of our Rules Committee meetings have been called so-called emergency meetings, and 100 percent of the bills the committee has sent to the floor have drawn a veto threat, and once again, the Republicans are using one rule for multiple bills. This is a disturbing pattern that is quickly becoming a bad habit.

The Republican leadership apparently isn't content to exclude Democrats from offering substantive, germane, and thoughtful amendments. They are also shutting down the debate itself.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress is only a few weeks old. We have 23 months left to go. Are the Republicans really saying that we can't find an extra hour for debate during the next 23 months? Of course we can. They just prefer not to. It is unfair, it is undemocratic, it is unnecessary, and it needs to stop.

Now, as to the bill that is before us today, last night, as we all know, President Obama laid out a bold, clear, and exciting agenda to spur economic growth and ensure that prosperity is shared by all Americans, not just the wealthy few and special interests. I thought it was a terrific speech.

Apparently, my Republican friends weren't paying very close attention. I know they were there in this Chamber because I saw many of them. The Speaker himself was sitting right behind the President. Maybe they were sending each other cat videos or taking selfies because the President made it very clear that if Congress sends him bills that move us backward, he will veto them, and both of these bills deserve his veto.

The first, H.R. 161, is a solution in search of a problem. It is as simple as that. The bill would automatically approve natural gas pipeline projects if FERC or other Federal agencies do not act on required permits or certificates within a rigid, unworkable timeframe.

A GAO report concluded that FERC's pipeline permitting process is predictable and consistent, with 91 percent of pipeline applications receiving a decision within 12 months. During committee testimony last Congress, even industry representatives agreed that the current permitting process is ``generally very good.'' It is not every day that regulators and industry agree that the current system works.

So why would we move forward on a bill that disrupts a system that works is beyond me. In fact, this bill makes it more likely that FERC will deny more projects just to comply with the severe timeline.

In Massachusetts, we are dealing with the proposed Tennessee Gas pipeline which would run through parts of my district and would cut through a number of environmentally sensitive

lands, including Northfield State Forest and the Montague aquifer and management area.

Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment with my good friend Congresswoman Niki Tsongas, whose district would also be affected by the proposed pipeline, to keep the existing review process in place for proposed pipelines that cross Federal, State, or local conservation or recreation lands because, if we have already invested Federal and State money into identifying these lands as environmentally sensitive, it doesn't make any sense to expedite the approval of a pipeline that could bulldoze right through them.

It is worth a debate. Unfortunately, Republicans on the Rules Committee voted down this commonsense amendment in a party-line vote.

As the gentlewoman from North Carolina pointed out, both of these rules are completely closed. Even though they did not go through regular order, even though there were no hearings in this Congress or no markup, nobody--no Democrat, no Republican--can offer an amendment.

Then there is H.R. 36. This is just the latest Republican assault on women's reproductive rights. It is their latest attempt to put politicians in the middle of the private medical decisions of women. It is blatantly unconstitutional, and it fails to take into consideration the fact that some pregnancies can have catastrophic, heartbreaking complications, even after 20 weeks.

To make matters worse, this legislation lacks a reasonable exception for victims of rape and incest by requiring victims to report cases of rape and incest to law enforcement in order to have access to an abortion, this despite the fact that research shows that the majority of sexual assaults are unreported, and on top of that, the exception on incest is only for minors.

Mr. Speaker, what really bothers me about bills like this is that the same people who vote for them routinely vote to cut the WIC program, to cut Head Start and childcare programs and SNAP and school lunch programs, and elementary and secondary education funding. This hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Mr. Speaker, leading medical groups agree that doctors, in consultation with women and their families, should make medical decisions, not the politicians.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. They deserve a better process, and they deserve better legislation. We certainly have a lot to do to help get this country to continue on the road to prosperity, to make sure that everybody can share in this economy's growth.

I urge my colleagues: let's focus on those issues, let's come together and do something for the American people, and enough of these message bills.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, I yield myself such time as I may consume as I want to respond to this issue about process.

When Speaker Boehner became the Speaker of this House, in his opening speech, one of the things he said was:

You will always have the right to a robust debate and an

open process that allows you to represent your constituents--

to make your case, to offer alternatives, and to be heard.

Clearly, we have not been granted that in any way, shape, or form.

While the gentlewoman may point to the sins of the past of Democratic majorities, nothing compares to what the Republicans did in the last Congress. The Republicans presided over the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

I mean, you made history, and that is not something to be proud of.

When my friends talk about openness and transparency and about the desire to allow this to be a deliberative place where people of varying viewpoints can have a forum to debate, it is not reflective of reality. We are beginning this Congress just as my colleagues conducted the last Congress--in the most closed way possible. I regret that very much, especially on bills that have not even been through the committee hearing process in this Congress or that have not been marked up.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

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

Let me just say for the record that facts are facts are facts. There is no denying that the last Republican Congress held the record for the most closed rules in the history of the United States.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the current rule, but to the best of my knowledge, not a single amendment is allowed, notwithstanding that in this Congress there have been no hearings and no markups.

Is it appropriate, Mr. Speaker, for me to ask unanimous consent to amend H.R. 36 and make it an open rule?

Will the gentlewoman from North Carolina yield?

So there it is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), a champion for women's rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), somebody who believes in protecting women's rights.

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

Sadly, we have seen all too well how money has polluted our politics and is undermining our democracy, so I am going to urge people to vote against the previous question.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of a sensible constitutional amendment, H.J. Res. 22, a measure that I have sponsored with my friends, Ted Deutch of Florida, Donna Edwards of Maryland, and John Sarbanes of Maryland, to overturn these decisions and make clear that Congress and States have the authority to regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money to influence elections.

To discuss this proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment that I will offer if we defeat the previous question in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Let me just recap for my colleagues here. First of all, vote ``no'' on this rule. This continues a trend that has nothing but contempt for regular order. These bills had no hearings in this Congress. There was no markup, and now, they are brought to the floor with no amendments-- two closed rules.

Notwithstanding the pledge of the Speaker for a more open and transparent process, people who have other ideas on ways to improve or change these bills are denied that opportunity.

I would say, with all due respect to my colleague from North Carolina, we can't use the excuse that we have got to keep the government running. We are in the beginning of the session. We are not doing much of anything. Clearly, the bills that we are debating in their current form are going to be vetoed anyway.

Secondly, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule because of the bills that are being brought up: this bill that is clearly an attack on women's health and reproductive rights,

which does not belong on this floor; and the other bill is a bill that basically allows there to be a process for pipelines to be approved without necessarily going through all the proper oversight.

And I am going to urge Members to vote against the previous question so we can bring up this bill that I talked about earlier on campaign finance reform.

Look, the legislative agenda in this Congress is about rewarding the highest donors. I think to any objective observer, when you see what is coming on the floor, including this pipeline bill which is not in the interest of the American people, we are not out there trying to protect their safety and well-being. It is a big kiss to the energy industry. And I would argue that the reason why bills like that--or some of the tax bills that are brought to this floor that reward big corporations and the wealthiest individuals--are brought to the floor is because those people who represent those wealthy interests have the most sway in this Congress. They are the biggest donors to political parties. They are the biggest donors to Members of Congress.

And while that is happening every day here, average people who can't contribute tens of thousands of dollars to political parties, who can't contribute millions of dollars, are increasingly becoming marginalized. The issues that matter most to working people, those struggling in the working class, those struggling to get into the middle class, we don't even get a chance to debate those issues on the House floor.

I will say to my Republican friends: I have had many conversations with you over the years about how you hate raising money as much as I hate raising money. Too much of our attention in this Congress, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, is about raising money for the next election, and it is getting worse and worse every election cycle. It is time to do something about that. It is time to give Congress the authority to regulate or put a cap on how much campaigns cost. I mean, we are going to spend billions of dollars in the next Presidential election. It is obscene. With all the problems that we have in this country, we ought to be spending more time debating those problems and not worrying about raising money.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can bring up this commonsense campaign finance proposal, and I also urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, down the hall in the old House Chamber stands Clio, Muse of History. Perched atop the room, she is riding the Chariot of Time. She has watched silently over the proceedings of this House since 1807. And in the folio that rests in the crook of her arm, she records every move, large and small, for the benefit of all generations, past, present, and future. What she is recording today is, I am certain, a disappointment.

The proceedings playing out before us today show a blatant, overt disrespect for the time-honored rules of this House, first written by Thomas Jefferson in 1801.

The bill that was supposed to come to the floor today, a bill that would have stripped women of their right to constitutionally protected medical care, was so odious and destructive that some of the women of the Republican Conference rebelled against it. It was based on unsound and fictitious science and caused such a meltdown in the Republican Conference that the House majority pulled it from the floor for fear that it wouldn't pass. But something had to be done because visitors were coming to town for the 42nd anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade.

On this day, there are floods of visitors here in the Nation's Capital to fight against that ruling, to protest that decision, and to raise their clarion call against a woman's right to choose.

In this current Congress, this bill was not brought to us under regular order--as not many are. It had no committee action. It had no hearings, no markup, no witnesses testified in favor or against it, and it came out of the Rules Committee and to the floor today under a closed rule.

One of the ever-ready alternatives came to us late last night, and it is even worse than the one it replaced. It seems that the majority has an endless supply of bills attacking women's health. Can't pass this one? Grab another. Can't pass that one? Just take the next one. Their insistence on attacking women's health seemingly knows no bounds.

Because this bill has not seen any committee action in the current Congress, no one has been able to read it or to weigh in on it or amend it, and some of us would like a clarification on the sordid history of this bill.

In the earliest version of this bill, which was in the 112th Congress, there was a phrase that lit a firestorm across the Nation. It was ``forcible rape.'' The bill was, indeed, the one that would have required women to prove that

their rape was ``forcible'' so it could be categorized as ``legitimate.'' Has nothing been learned here?

The next iteration of the bill, in the 113th Congress, included a provision--and listen to this, America--that would have required the IRS to audit women who had had abortions to ensure that the pregnancy that they terminated had been the result of rape or incest.

This extreme legislation, which is a dust-covered holdover from the last Congress, was originally sponsored by a man, originated from a subcommittee composed of 13 men, and was passed out of the Judiciary Committee with the votes of 21 Republican men. Remember those pictures, America, all of those men sitting there deciding what women's health would be about? It is a perfect illustration of a problem we have had for a long time, that men in blue suits and red ties determine what women can and should do when it comes to their own health or bodies.

This bill is absolutely a solution in search of a problem. As Ms. Foxx pointed out, all this is taken care of. There is no tax money for abortions. The bill in its current form would permanently prohibit low- income women, civil servants, District of Columbia residents, and military women from accessing a full range of reproductive services by codifying the Hyde amendment, which unfortunately already requires no taxpayer funds be spent on abortions except in very limited services. It has been this way for decades. Congress should be repealing these unfair and discriminatory bans, not doubling down on them.

Are these provisions still in the current bill text before us? We have had no chance to check, and it has been awhile since we have seen this bill.

This display is a messaging opportunity and another attempt to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. This bill not only threatens women who buy their insurance on public exchanges with Federal tax credits but also threatens women who use their own private money to pay for their health insurance on the exchanges. Experts tell us this would jeopardize the availability of abortion coverage for all women, no matter where they buy their insurance.

When the House considered this bill in the previous Congress, it was attempt number 49. Today, it is attempt number 55. That is right, ladies and gentlemen, 55 votes the majority has held in this Chamber to take health care away from their own constituents. The House majority has wasted nearly $80 million of taxpayer money to destroy the Affordable Care Act.

Infrastructure money, anyone?

Time and again, we see the House majority turn their backs on the people they represent and force an extreme agenda, one filled with poison pills that would take our country backward, backward to a time when women died from back-alley abortions; backward to a time of women in desperate circumstances seeking illegal procedures performed by strangers with dirty hands in unspeakable conditions; backward to a time when medical choices were not the choice of the woman, but of the public; backward to a time when women who ``got themselves into trouble'' by getting pregnant could not work and could not go to school.

These choices are personal. They are not public. A woman's actions regarding her own reproductive health should include anyone she deems appropriate, not politicians in Washington or State capitals scoring political points off her health care.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say there is no scientific evidence at all. As a matter of fact, gynecologists have all written to us--and we have their statements--that there is no way of fetal pain at 20 weeks.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Chair is correct, and we will do that.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene) to speak as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that we have heard what is in this bill, but this bill was taken out of the used-bill freezer last night at 9 o'clock, against all the rules, and put on the floor today. We really don't know what is in this bill.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

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

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

Madam Speaker, we just heard that apparently none of us have read the bill. That is absolutely true. The bill, as I said, was dragged out of the ``used bill freezer'' at 9 last night.

If it is the same bill that we were talking about that has been through for several terms, it still has the idea of forcible rape being the only legitimate rape and that the IRS can audit to see if you were really raped when you had an abortion and to prove that--again, taking women back to the days when everybody said that they could not make decisions and that they had to be made for them.

If this is the same bill that was brought to us, as we pointed out, by a subcommittee of 13 men and voted through the House by a committee of 21 men, then we don't need to read it again, and my understanding is that this is the same bill. It was repugnant then, and it certainly is repugnant now.

On behalf of the men and women of the United States who feel that they have the right to make their own health decisions, I beg the House of Representatives to turn down all of this.

Now, we know that what they are doing, literally, is dismissive of not only 51 percent of the women population--we are the majority population, we women in the United States--but this is certainly, by any account, a misuse of the Chamber's attention, and we are talking taxpayer funds. Believe me, this is a misuse of taxpayer funds.

Now, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow us to strike the 3-day layover waiver, the waiver that was given by the Rules Committee to not do the 3-day layover, but to have something to do on the floor today.

With 23 months left of the 114th Congress, we should be able to run the House in the thoughtful manner that the rules of the House provide for.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Now, I am going to urge again for all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question, vote ``no'' on the rule and, by all means, ``no'' on the intrusive, deceptive bill that has been talked about here for 40 years.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I want to thank my colleague for his great work and for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, today, The Wall Street Journal polled the American public and found that these are their top three priorities: creating jobs, defeating ISIS, and reducing the Federal budget deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I insert that piece from The Wall Street Journal into the Record.

[From The Wall Street Journal]

Poll Finds Agenda Gap Between Leaders, American People

(By Janet Hook)

Republicans are trying to burnish their party's image--and

Congress'--by promising to ``get things done'' now that the

GOP controls both the House and Senate. But a new Wall Street

Journal/NBC News poll shows that the public doesn't care much

about some of the first things the GOP, or President Barack

Obama, is trying to do.

The poll conducted from Jan. 14-17 found that two of the

major issues congressional Republicans and the White House

have identified as candidates for bipartisan action--trade

and simplification of the tax code--didn't even make the top

five issues that people feel need to be addressed urgently.

The poll tried to identify the issues that are most

important to Americans by asking which issues they considered

an ``absolute priority'' for Congress and the president to

act on this year, as opposed to issues that they think could

be delayed.

The list was topped by enduring concerns: job creation,

fighting Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, reducing the

federal deficit and securing the U.S. border.

But people are virtually yawning at the prospect of

expanding U.S. trade, a priority for an administration trying

to finalize a new free-trade agreement with Asian and Pacific

Rim countries. Only 20% said that was an urgent priority for

this year, 59% said it could be delayed until next year and

16% said it shouldn't be pursued at all.

``It's a reminder that this is for the most part a very

distant economic issue and it's not one that people focus

on,'' said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who

conducted the poll with Democrat Fred Yang.

The apathy about trade is bipartisan. Only 22% of

Republicans and 21% of Democrats said it was a top priority.

Simplifying the tax code is also an issue that's not a top-

five policy priority for most Americans, but is treated like

a motherhood issue by politicians of both parties. Just over

half polled said it was an urgent priority--less than the

percentage who wanted to make ``efforts to address Iran's

nuclear program'' a top agenda item.

Even some of the issues Washington lawmakers are fighting

over are matters of only marginal concern to many people.

Republicans have acted quickly on a bill to finish

construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and Mr. Obama threw

down his first veto threat over it. But nearly four in ten

people polled said they didn't know enough about the issue to

have an opinion.

The survey of policy priorities underscored another trend

that doesn't bode well for bipartisan cooperation: On all but

a handful of issues, such as job creation and infrastructure

repair, the poll found big disparities in the interests of

the two parties. So, while 67% of Democrats identified income

inequality as an urgent priority, only 19% of Republicans

did. U.S. border security was a top priority for 79% of

Republicans but only 43% of Democrats.

It's not surprising, then, that the poll found people were

down on the idea of having divided government. Mr. Obama and

Republicans in Congress may agree on the need to ``get things

done.'' The problem is there isn't a lot of agreement on what

``things'' should get priority.

Mr. Speaker, why am I bringing that up? The offense, to me, is that there are so many people in Congress who always want to bring up this issue of eating away at Roe v. Wade. They don't have the nerve, I think, really, to try to take that away.

Roe v. Wade gave women a choice, and I believe that, if you don't want to have that choice yourself, don't use it; but what right do people who do not agree with choice have to make it the law of the land--to require everybody to live under what they believe is true?

Now, there is not a scintilla of scientific evidence that at 20 weeks pain is felt. The neural connections are not there to have that happen.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to insert into the Record what scientists-- the executive vice president and others--have said from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in that this is not possible.

January 21, 2015.

Dear Member of the House of Representatives, We, the

undersigned medical and public health organizations, stand in

strong opposition to H.R. 36, the so-called ``Pain-Capable

Unborn Child Protection Act,'' sponsored by Representative

Trent Franks (R-AZ) and Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-

TN). Politicians are not doctors and should not interfere in

personal, medical decisions.

If enacted, H.R. 36 would ban most abortions in the United

States at 20 weeks after fertilization, clearly before

viability. The bill threatens providers with fines and/or

imprisonment for providing professional and compassionate

care, and is intended to intimidate and discourage doctors

from providing abortion care. This bill places health care

providers in an untenable situation--when they are facing a

complex, urgent medical situation, they must think about an

unjust law instead of about how to protect the health and

safety of their patients.

Politicians are not medical experts. H.R. 36 disregards the

health issues and real life situations that women can face in

pregnancy. Every woman faces her own unique circumstances,

challenges, and potential complications. She needs to be able

to make decisions based on her physician's medical advice and

what is right for her and her family.

H.R. 36 would force a doctor to deny an abortion to a woman

who has determined that terminating a pregnancy is the right

decision for her, including women carrying a pregnancy with

severe and lethal anomalies that may not be diagnosed until

after 20 weeks in pregnancy and women with serious medical

conditions brought on or exacerbated by pregnancy. H.R. 36

contains no exception to preserve the health of the woman.

Instead, it includes a vague life endangerment exception

which exposes doctors to the threat of criminal prosecution,

limiting their options for care that is often needed in

complex, urgent medical situations.

Moreover, H.R. 36 would dictate how physicians should care

for their patients based on inaccurate and unscientific

claims. Conclusive research shows that contrary to the

sponsors' claims, the fetus doesn't have the neurological

structures needed to experience pain until significantly

later in pregnancy.

We strongly oppose governmental interference in the

patient-provider relationship and criminalizing provision of

care to women and their families. H.R. 36 jeopardizes the

health of women in the U.S. by limiting access to safe and

legal abortion and replaces personal decision-making by women

and their doctors with political ideology. Our organizations

urge you to oppose passage of H.R. 36.

Sincerely,

American College of Nurse-Midwives,

American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

American Medical Students Association,

American Medical Women's Association,

American Nurses Association,

American Society for Reproductive Medicine,

Association of Reproductive Health Professionals,

Medical Students for Choice,

National Abortion Federation,

National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's

Health,

National Family Planning and Reproductive Health

Association,

Physicians for Reproductive Health,

Planned Parenthood Federation of America,

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine,

Society of Family Planning.

Mr. Speaker, as a scientist, I have learned that this Congress does not take scientific facts as facts but that it views them as, maybe, suggestions. Yet how often it is that we are playing with people's lives. It is the most personal decision one could ever make, and it should be made between the woman, her family, or whomever she wants to consult--her doctor, her priest, her pastor--anybody--but not the Congress of the United States.

Why do men in blue suits and red ties get to make that decision when it has nothing to do with scientific or medical facts? It is absolutely astonishing to me that this continues over and over again; and in the States that have passed 20-week abortion bills, the bills have always been overturned with regard to the constitutional question, and this will be as well.

Time and time again, when asked about it, neurobiology specialists, obstetricians, and gynecologists the world over have refuted the scientific and factual premises of this bill, but nobody cares about that here. I saw a great button that called the people here who are trying to do this today ``gyneticians.'' A ``gynetician'' is described as a politician who knows more about women's health than doctors do.

We can go on with this, but what we need to remember is that, last night, half of the President's speech dealt with people who are underpaid and who struggle to live in America.

Mr. Speaker, let me get right to the chase here.

Barney Frank, our former colleague, said that many people believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth.

I want to know how this Congress is going to comply with what the President asked us last night: Will you give more money for child care? for daycare? Will you give more money for early education? Will you make sure that mothers are paid as much as the men they are working with and that the same jobs pay the same? Will you do something about paid sick leave? Will you help these children get to college?

Absolutely not. The record has been clear on all of these issues.

There is something really awful when we take up the time to please the base of some sort out there against all scientific belief and everything that we know about medicine. I wish this Congress would stop the folly. We are faced with a lot of serious problems in this country. Again, as my colleague points out, we have no ability to amend it. Nobody else can be heard on anything else. It is simply going to be voted on; the Senate may or may not ever take it up; and the President will not sign it. It is the same thing that we did over and over in the last session--kill health care.

Do everything you can. Nothing is going to be signed. No bills will be made. It is a shame. I have labeled it before as ``legislative malpractice,'' and that is exactly what is going on with this bill.