Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 696 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and ordered a rule for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 195, the Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act of 2018. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us represents the fourth continuing resolution to fund the government for the fiscal year 2018. In bringing up this bill, the House is fulfilling its primary obligation to the American people: to fund the government and keep the government open and operating.

With the package under consideration today, Congress will fund the government through February 16, 2018. We will provide crucial dollars to keep the government functioning, to support our troops and the military, and to ensure we are all working for the American people. We will provide time to negotiate a larger agreement on funding the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, as well as a badly needed immigration reform measure.

In addition to funding the government, this bill also includes several other important provisions. Most notably, it reauthorizes the Children's Health Insurance Program--or CHIP, as it is popularly known--for 6 years. It also implements critical delays in certain taxes imposed by the Affordable Care Act, including a 2-year delay for the medical device tax, a 2-year delay for the so-called Cadillac tax on health insurance plans, and a 1-year delay on the health insurance tax.

As a supporter of repealing and replacing the entire Affordable Care Act, I am gratified to see this delay in imposing these harmful taxes on the American people.

Finally, I am also pleased that this bill provides additional funding for ballistic missile defense, which is of crucial importance when dealing with rogue states like North Korea.

Mr. Speaker, in 2017, Congress actually got a great deal done. The House and the Senate have worked with President Trump to do more to deregulate the economy and free small businesses from harmful regulations than any previous Congress.

The Senate has been productive in overhauling the judicial branch, confirming a new Supreme Court Justice and 12 judges for the courts of appeals. The House and the Senate have approved and passed into law a new National Defense Authorization Act, which will provide new tools to rebuild and strengthen our military in the face of global threats.

We have passed two supplemental appropriations bills to deal with the damage caused by multiple disasters across the country, and I am confident we will pass a third in the days ahead.

Above all, the crown jewel in this first year of the 115th Congress has been the passage of major tax reform legislation, which will boost the economy, reduce the tax burden on workers, support working families, and simplify and modernize our burdensome Tax Code. I am particularly pleased this bill included the repeal of the ObamaCare individual mandate.

The place where Congress has not gotten its job done is in the appropriations process. This is not the fault of the House of Representatives. Under the leadership of Chairman Black, the House wrote and passed a budget for FY18--fiscal year '18--in April. Through the efforts of Chairman Frelinghuysen and the other members of the Appropriations Committee, the House wrote and passed all 12 appropriations bills prior to the start of the fiscal year.

However, our friends in the Senate have failed to act. We have been waiting for over 120 days--4 months--for the Senate to either act on our bills or write their own and send us passed appropriations legislation to consider. The Senate has not done so. Given their failure to act, we need yet another additional short-term CR to ensure the government remains open.

It is my hope, in the interim, that the leaders of the two Chambers and the President will be able to come together to determine what our spending top lines will be for the fiscal year 2018. Once that happens, all the interested parties can meet to put together a bipartisan and bicameral full-year spending bill.

If the leadership of both Chambers come to an agreement, I am confident that the appropriators can produce bills to fund the government in fiscal year 2018 and begin the important task of producing a budget for fiscal year 2019.

Let me be crystal clear about the consequences of voting against the underlying legislation:

A vote against the underlying legislation is a vote against reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program.

A vote against the underlying legislation is a vote to tax the health insurance plans of millions of Americans.

A vote against the underlying legislation is a vote to tax the medical devices that millions of Americans rely on.

A vote against the underlying legislation is a vote against badly needed funds to protect America against missile attacks from rogue states like North Korea.

And a vote against the underlying legislation is a vote to shut down the government of the United States.

I hope every Member on both sides of the aisle understands these consequences and votes accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, today's CR accomplishes several important tasks and keeps our government open and operating. But there is still more work to be done. In the words of Winston Churchill: ``Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my good friend refers to the drama of the moment. Frankly, there wouldn't be any drama if Democrats would simply vote to keep the government open while good faith negotiations are going on on the very topics they are most concerned about.

They are concerned about the immigration issue; there is a negotiation under way. They are concerned about the appropriate balance between military and nonmilitary spending in the budget; there is a negotiation that is under way.

Now, I suspect this effort to threaten a government shutdown in order to achieve policy aims that are unrelated to the funding and operation of the government will not succeed in this House. Here, we have a simple majority. But to my friend's point, and to be fair, that is not the case in the United States Senate. There, Democratic votes will be needed to keep the government open.

Now, this House's responsibility is to do everything we can to keep the government functioning. In addition to that, there are important policy objectives in here that my friends, I think, either agree with or have even been demanding.

The reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program is something both sides agree on. Actually, the 6-year extension is a year beyond what the Democrats asked for when the legislation was originally considered last fall. That is something I know they agree with, and I would hope they would vote for it.

A couple of the unattractive parts of the Affordable Care Act, which even

my opponents who supported it en masse agree with:

It is not very smart to tax the health insurance plans of American workers. We have got a delay of that for 2 years.

They also agree it is not wise to tax medical devices. Again, we have a measure in here that would delay that for 2 years.

They also, I know, believe that we ought to protect the American people against missile attacks from rogue states. There is a request from the Pentagon in here, again, that is fully funded.

There is absolutely nothing in this bill that my friends on the other side object to. There are many things that they support. Now, they are perfectly free to say, well, I would like this, and this, and this, and this added. But there is nothing in here to vote against.

If you want to raise the other issues, I suspect we can work out an agreement. And I suspect those issues are being negotiated, literally, right now in budget discussions and budget talks. So that is the appropriate place to deal with them. But, again, there is no reason to shut down the government or threaten a shutdown unless you are trying to force some unrelated policy objective.

In this case, the immigration issue that my friend refers to, actually things extend into March. There are talks underway there. I don't see how shutting down the government moves us toward that solution.

The same thing is true with the other functions of government. So I would say we have a very reasonable prospect or proposal on the table here. I suspect that we will achieve the majority in this Chamber. Then we will go to the United States Senate, and we will see whether Democrats there really do want to shut down the government, as opposed to pass a number of items that they agree with: keep the government running and keep negotiations going.

That is the responsible thing to do. That is what I think this House will do. That is what I hope Members on both sides of the aisle choose to do, both when they vote here and later when they take this matter up for consideration in the United States Senate.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let's be crystal clear on something. The House of Representatives never held up CHIP. It actually passed it in October. We are still waiting for Democrats in the Senate to work with Republicans in the Senate and send us something back. In the meantime, in this bill, my friend said they want to reauthorize CHIP. We reauthorized it for 6 years. There is nothing in it they object to. They believe in the program. I believe in the program. It has had bipartisan support.

When we passed it, it got almost every Republican vote, a couple of dozen Democratic votes. We actually made the bill better in the process, so if you want to fix CHIP, you just simply need to vote for this bill.

And my friends, frankly, we wouldn't be racing Members back here, or the President of the United States, if my friends weren't threatening to block vote against funding the government while negotiations are underway. What advantage do you have in shutting down the government of the United States, which is precisely what my friends are threatening to do? I think they will not succeed here but actually have the ability to do it in the United States Senate, should they choose to do it under the rules of that body.

While negotiations are going on, if you think shutting down the government is a good idea, I beg to differ. If you are using it as a negotiating tactic, then you ought to be ashamed, because that is no way to treat the American people.

We are operating in good faith. There is not an item in this bill that offends any Democrat. Nobody I know is against CHIP. We just heard that. Nobody I know is against delaying the Cadillac tax or the medical device tax in ObamaCare--two parts of that bill that even my friends who supported it tend to disagree with. I know my friends are not opposed to providing ballistic missile defense for the United States of America. I know my friends surely don't want to handicap the American military at a dangerous time by a government shutdown. There is nothing in here that could possibly be offensive to them.

And there are negotiations underway on the very items they are most concerned about: immigration and the appropriate balance in funding level. Shutting down the government while those negotiations are underway isn't going to help us get DACA reform, isn't going to help us actually get a budget that we can operate on. It will actually just simply switch attention away from those and create a crisis, which I assume my friends think will work, somehow, to their political benefit.

I don't think that is true, and I speak from some experience here. I argued against it, but I watched my own side do something like this when it came to defunding ObamaCare. It was not successful. It was not the appropriate way to proceed, and there was a pretty harsh verdict by the American people.

I suggest my friends are running the same risk today. Now, they have every right to do this. I never question any Member's right to vote how they think is appropriate, but, in this case, in this body, I think we have the votes to make sure that they don't shut down the government as they have threatened to do.

In the United States Senate, that is going to be up to them. Frankly, if Democratic Senators want to shut down the government to achieve some policy objective, that is their choice. But I think it will be crystal clear at the end of the day who actually closed down the government for some unrelated policy aim that was actually under negotiation at the time.

So I would, again, just urge my friends to benefit from our experience and sit down and keep negotiating while we keep the government open. I think if we do that, we will arrive at a constructive solution for the American people. I think if we don't, it is going to be a political crisis that was unprovoked and unnecessary.

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

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

Just to be clear with my good friend from Texas, Democrats didn't pass a budget. They proposed a budget. That is fair enough, but they never passed a budget in this House. There was a budget that was passed by the Republican majority. It is interesting, that budget actually came into balance within 10 years. Our friends on the other side never presented a budget that came into balance from any of their various groups.

Frankly, the last administration never presented a budget that ever came into balance. So it is hard to talk about a budget that never comes into balance as if it is a responsible document. It is clearly not.

In terms of my friend's concern about CHIP, it is an appropriate concern. The answer is right in front of her. Simply vote for this bill. You got a 6-year authorization that was longer than my friends originally asked for in the negotiations that were last fall.

This House has actually, again, met all of its obligations. My friends' counterparts in the other body, frankly, have used their votes under the rules of that body to sabotage any appropriations process whatsoever. It requires 60 votes in the United States Senate. Unfortunately, we only have 51. So if Democrats won't sit down and negotiate, nothing much gets done over there. That is why we are here today. Frankly, we are here to make sure the government doesn't shut down.

Now, again, my friends have every right to vote to shut down the government. If they vote ``no'' on this measure, that is exactly what they are doing. They are voting to shut down the government. They are voting not to reauthorize CHIP. They are voting to tax the American people by putting taxes on their healthcare plans and putting taxes on medical devices. They are missing the opportunity to help us with missile defense in a very dangerous era. And they are throwing away the time while negotiations on the topics they are concerned about are underway--negotiations on the budget and negotiations on DACA.

So why my friends want to do this at this particular point is beyond me. But I would suggest it is not likely to work. It is likely to backfire. If we end up in a government shutdown--something I would very much advise against--I think my friends, all of whom will have voted to shut down the government, will bear the responsibility. I think the American people will understand.

Now, again, I don't think my friends will succeed in this House, but they may well in the upper Chamber because, up there, they do have the votes under the rules of that body to shut down the government. I would urge them not to do that and to keep the government operational, to take these victories--and they are victories where we agree--and keep negotiating on the issues that most concern us. I think that is the appropriate way to proceed, and I would urge my friends to adopt that course.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a press release from--my friends may have missed this--the Children's Hospital Association.

[Press Release, Jan. 18, 2018]

Children's Hospitals to Congress: Kids Can't Wait, Fund CHIP Now

Washington, DC.-- The Children's Health Insurance Program

(CHIP) is vital to millions of children and families. These

families have been living with uncertainty since funding for

CHIP expired at the end of September. States are exhausting

all available program funds and have announced plans to

freeze enrollment and, in some cases, end their programs

altogether. Kids can't wait any longer.

Congress has a chance to pass a long-term extension of CHIP

that will provide security for millions of kids. The

continuing resolution being considered by Congress includes a

six-year extension of CHIP. Children's hospitals support a

long-term extension of CHIP and urge Congress to take this

opportunity to pass CHIP this week. The time is now to extend

funding for this lifeline millions of children and their

families count on every day.

About the Children's Hospital Association--the Children's

Hospital Association is the national voice of more than 220

children's hospitals, advancing child health through

innovation in the quality, cost and delivery of care.

Mr. Speaker, the Children's Hospital Association has actually urged that this bill be adopted. They have urged that we, for 6 years, ensure the funding. They would like my friends--who I know believe in the program--to actually vote for the measure in front of them.

Now, we have heard a number of things about kicking the can down the road. I confess, keeping the government open while negotiations are in progress is something we are trying to do.

But I also point out this is not simply a normal CR. It settles the Children's Health Insurance Program for the next 6 years and appropriately funds it. It delays tax increases, which my friends also oppose, although they voted for them in ObamaCare on people's health insurance programs and on medical devices. It provides badly needed dollars for missile defense in an era of crisis with an irresponsible state.

It doesn't have anything in it that offends my friends in any way. There is nothing in this bill they are against. If they are, I would like to know.

Is it CHIP that my friends are against? Is it delaying the Cadillac tax that my friends are against? Is it, frankly, delaying the medical device tax increase that my friends are against? Is it putting more money in ballistic missile defense that my friends are against? Or is it just continuing the government's operations that my friends are against while negotiations are underway?

I am not sure which one my friends are for, but it suggests to me if there is nothing in here they are against, then they ought to be voting for the bill.

Finally, to my friend's point--and there is more to this than their comments would suggest--to suggest that we simply can control the universe around here isn't true. We don't write the Senate rules. I wish we did. They would probably look a lot different and we probably would have less of a problem. But my friends have not been able to shut down the government here, although they tried to in December. I don't think they will be able to shut down the government, although they will try to again today.

But in the United States Senate, the Democrats will decide whether or not the government continues to operate; whether or not CHIP is reauthorized for 6 years, as the Children's Hospital Association urges; whether or not millions of American families are spared from a tax increase simply because they fought and worked for a decent insurance plan; whether or not millions of Americans who depend on medical devices for their survival have to pay more for them; and whether or not we have a higher level of certainty that we can defend ourselves against an unprovoked and dangerous attack that might occur at any moment.

That will be a decision for Democrats in the Senate to make as long as we vote here to move this legislation forward. I think we will, and I would invite my friends to join us in that.

There is nothing in here that offends my friends. There are many things that my friends like, and there are negotiations underway on the things that are my friends' concerns.

I would suspect that is the course that we ought to take, and I would urge my friends to reconsider and adopt that course.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to close whenever my good friend is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to, as always, thank my good friend. We disagree on this, but there is nobody that I enjoy serving with on the Rules Committee more than my good friend, the ranking member. She is a wise and able legislator.

There are a couple of things she said I am going to agree with. She did say that facts matter. I actually agree with that. Facts do matter here, and the fact of the matter is anyone who votes ``no'' on this resolution is voting to shut down the government. Anyone--Republican or Democrat--who votes ``no'' has said: I am not willing to keep the government open while negotiations are underway.

Anyone who votes ``no'' is voting against a 6-year extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program that we all agree on to say is critical. Anyone who votes ``no'' is absolutely guaranteed a tax increase or will be voting for a tax increase on American workers who happen to have a fairly decent insurance program. Anybody who votes ``no'' is going to raise taxes on Americans who are ill enough to require medical devices.

Anyone who votes ``no'' is going to make sure we don't have the resources we need to protect this country in a time of international crisis against a potential rogue missile attack.

Anyone who votes ``no,'' to begin where I started, is voting to shut down

the government. It is that simple. My friends did that in December because they thought, ``Well, they can't do it without us,'' but we did. I suspect we will be able to do that again. But I regret that anyone would vote ``no'' on those kinds of votes because I think they will come back to haunt them.

My friend also--and I think this may actually be the key to the issue--quoted polling data that said the Republicans are going to get the blame anyway. That may be true. I don't doubt the accuracy of my friend's numbers, but I suspect that, once they watch the process, the American people are pretty smart and they will understand a ``no'' vote is a vote to shut down the government.

Now, if my friends are gambling that Republicans will get the blame for this because they have done this in the past, I think they are running a terrible risk with their own credibility.

In this body, we will succeed. I don't serve in the United States Senate, never served in the United States Senate, never worked for anybody who served in the Senate. They have rules that will allow the Democrats to shut down the government if they choose to do it. I don't think they will. But if they do, I think they will regret it. Certainly, many on my side regret some of the decisions they made in the last crisis of this kind.

I hope we do the responsible thing in this body and count on cooler heads in the United States Senate to do the same thing.

I also would point out that in this bill that my friends are going to vote ``no'' on--probably in overwhelming numbers, I am sad to say-- there is nothing in it they disagree with. They don't disagree with the CHIP reauthorization. They don't disagree with delaying taxes in the Affordable Care Act. They don't disagree with providing additional missile defense.

They tell us they want to keep the government operating, particularly when there are negotiations underway on the matters that actually concern them. That strikes me as incredibly disingenuous, shortsighted, or both.

So I urge my friends: Do what you must on the rule. The rule is the rule. That is always a partisan exercise, and I always respect my friends for voting ``no'' on a rule. But the underlying legislation is real: whether or not the government operates; whether or not we take care of these knotty problems where we happen to agree; whether or not we actually put the well-being of the country, in terms of its defense, above the media partisan interests. Those things are all areas that shouldn't be tough votes.

So I would hope my friends reconsider, come down and vote to keep the government running instead of shutting it down, come down and vote to keep taxes from being imposed on hardworking families through their health insurance plan or medical devices, come down and vote to make sure we have the strongest possible defense against any possible attack on our country, and come down and vote to keep the government open while negotiations are underway. I think the failure to do that is one that my friends will look back on with deep regret in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I encourage all Members to support the rule. Today's bill represents the next step toward fulfilling our primary obligation as Members of Congress: to fund the government. Although not perfect, the bill before us today will fund our government and keep it open and operating through February 16, 2018.

We will also reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program for 6 years and achieve a delay in several harmful Obama taxes. While doing so, we bolster the defense of our country at a dangerous time.

While I look forward to completing our work and passing a bipartisan, bicameral full-year omnibus spending bill, for now, this legislation will keep the government open and operating and give us time to continue working toward a bipartisan agreement for the American people.

I applaud my colleagues for their work.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows

An Amendment to H. Res. 696 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

4820) to extend funding for certain public health programs,

and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall

be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration

of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to

the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among

and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority

members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee

on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall

be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At

the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 4820.

Mr. Speaker, 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 Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, today we will consider the 61st closed rule of the Congress, part of a disturbing and familiar pattern. Republicans are running this House with no regular order, no hearings on legislation, and one closed rule after another. Speaker Ryan and House Republicans recently set a record as presiding over the most closed session of Congress in history, and now they are adding to it.

With no transparency and their continued effort to silence any debate or dissent, this House Chamber feels more like the Russian house rather than the people's House. Now, I know Donald Trump is enthralled with authoritarian rulers and authoritarian rule, but that doesn't mean you guys have to follow suit.

Today's rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 4712, yet another partisan and extreme Republican bill that is completely unnecessary and aimed solely at pleasing the majority's rightwing base. The simple truth is that this bill is filled with inflammatory language intentionally designed to politicize women's access to healthcare. It is clearly about nothing more than advancing an agenda to take away access to safe and legal abortion.

With this bill, House Republicans are meddling in the decisions that should be left up to doctors and patients. That is not our job. What we are doing today is not about serious legislating. If it were, the majority would have gone through regular order. This bill is nothing more than a very cynical effort to give Republican Members of Congress something to point to when they join the anti-choice march in Washington this week. Republicans are recklessly playing politics with women's health, and they should be ashamed.

My Republican colleagues claim that this bill is just a reinstatement of the current born-alive law. First, if that were true, then this bill would be redundant and unnecessary; and, second, Democrats would support it. When the original law came to the House floor in 2002, it was passed by a voice vote. We all agreed. But this bill is not a reinstatement.

This bill takes the current, functional law and adds a radical inclusion of criminal penalties for doctors if they violate the unreasonable requirements of this legislation.

Under current law, when a child is born alive, including during an abortion procedure, the healthcare provider is required to care for this newborn and apply a standard level of care given to any and every child. However, this bill takes the law a step further and requires that the doctor immediately transport this child to a hospital, without exception, whether it is safe for the child or not, or face criminal punishment--up to 5 years in jail.

This bill could create a chilling effect and limit access to safe, legal abortion for women since physicians may fear prosecution. Patients need and deserve access to compassionate and appropriate medical care. This bill is, quite frankly, unconscionable.

Mr. Speaker, there are times when immediately transporting a newborn to a hospital that may be miles or even hours away may result in grave harm to that infant. Such decisions must be left to the professional judgment of doctors and clinicians.

Doctors and clinicians oppose this law because it prevents them from giving the best care to their patients. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists strongly oppose this legislation, calling it a ``gross interference in the practice of medicine.''

Current law is working and should not be radically changed for a partisan talking point. Right now there are a number of truly critical issues that we ought to be considering on this floor, not a sound bite for an anti-choice rally coming up in the next couple of days.

A clear majority of Americans, I should point out to my colleagues, seven out of ten, say they believe a woman should have the right to a safe, legal abortion according to a Quinnipiac University poll. By stark contrast, fewer than three in ten Americans--that is 29 percent-- approve of the job Republicans are doing in Congress. Maybe the majority ought to get the hint. People don't like what you are doing. This should be a wake-up call to Republicans to end their partisan crusades and start doing their jobs. It is time to focus on the real pressing issues we face.

The Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, which nearly 2 million kids and their families rely on, has been in limbo for months as States are beginning to run out of money. Now Republicans are pushing a continuing resolution that fails to permanently extend CHIP. Permanently extending CHIP would not only give these kids and their families the certainty they need when it comes to their healthcare, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that it would also save $6 billion. I thought the majority were the party of fiscal responsibility. Do the right thing and save $6 billion. But Republicans would rather kick the can down the road once again.

The authorizations for Community Health Center funds and the Maternal, Infant, and Childhood Home Visitation programs will remain expired. That is not even included in this partisan CR that we are going to see a little bit later today.

Each and every day, 122 DREAMers are losing their protected status and ability to work in this country, and my Republican friends don't seem at all bothered by that.

People who are first responders, saving lives, people who serve in our military and people who work in our companies who are such great members of our community are treated like this in such a rotten way, and yet more inaction.

The administration just stripped 200,000 Salvadorans legally residing in the United States of their protected status, people who are obeying our laws and who are working here legally.

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

never mind move anything forward that is positive with regard to protecting these important members of our community.

The debt limit needs to be raised to ensure the U.S. is able to pay its bills. Communities are urgently in need of resources to fight the opioid epidemic that is killing 91 Americans a day.

They are tired of your press releases. They want the funding to be able to respond to the crisis in their communities; yet, nothing in this CR, no urgency here in Congress.

More needs to be done to help repair damage left by devastating wildfires and hurricanes that have ravaged this country. I just came back from a trip to Puerto Rico. The place is still in great disrepair, and our initial response to that hurricane was disgraceful. We have a special obligation to these people, our fellow citizens, to better respond; yet, there is no urgency here.

Most importantly, where is the budget agreement that sets the caps for fiscal year 2018? House and Senate appropriators can't even begin negotiations on an omnibus funding bill until they know the top-line numbers.

That means that this will not be the last short-term continuing resolution that we see before this House. Until there is an agreement on the budget caps, we will continue to see the Republican majority keep kicking the can down the road. We will see CR No. 5 in mid- February and maybe CR No. 6 shortly thereafter.

When will the Republicans finally stop negotiating with themselves and instead reach out to Democrats and work in a bipartisan way and actually get the job done that we were sent here to do by our constituents?

We are just hours away from another Republican shutdown, and instead of working on a bipartisan agreement, we are here discussing this inflammatory bill that will impose criminal penalties on doctors and allow Congress to intrude on medical care decisions.

When are we going to put the radical rhetoric aside and do our jobs and tackle the real issues that the Americans sent us here to tackle?

Here is kind of the icing on the cake. This government shutdown is looming. We are going to run out of money on Friday. All hell is going to break loose if we can't come to some sort of agreement. You would think we would be working together to get this done as quickly as possible.

But then we are told we are going to consider the continuing resolution rule after this and then we are going to debate it, but we are not going to vote on it until later night, after 7, maybe even later.

Why, people might ask, are we delaying action on a bill that decides whether we keep the government open?

Oh, we just found out President Trump is doing a political rally with Republican Members of Congress in Pennsylvania.

So the political rally is more important than the well-being of the American people?

What are you guys thinking?

Shame on you. This is a moment of urgency and instead of doing political sound bite legislation and instead of doing political rallies in Pennsylvania for an election that doesn't happen until March, Members of Congress ought to be here, working to keep the government running, to come to some sort of accommodation on the DREAMers, to make sure community health centers are funded, to make sure our veterans get the funding and the healthcare they need.

What you are doing is atrocious. If the American people could sue you for political malpractice, you would be in deep trouble.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, to oppose this bill that would severely undermine women's access to essential services like abortion, and I urge my colleagues to cancel the political rally and get back to work.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from Wyoming that I will point out a little statistic that she might be interested in. That is, I think never in history has the government been shut down when the same party controls the House, the Senate, and the White House, like the Republicans do right now. The Republicans have a 23-seat majority, I think, in the House right now. You control the agenda.

If the gentlewoman or her leadership were interested in working with Democrats, here is a little advice: maybe you ought to have asked us to the table. Maybe you should consult with us. Maybe you should ask us what we think is important. Maybe you ought to understand that if you want to get something done that is bipartisan, you have to act in a bipartisan way.

The reason why I am anxious to get this vote on the CR is because I think the CR that has been proposed is wholly inadequate. It is not in the best interest of our country.

But I want us to continue to negotiate it. Maybe the Republicans will come back to the table and negotiate. That is why I feel so strongly that my Republican friends ought not be going to political rallies in Pennsylvania today with the President and they ought to be staying here to do the work to make sure we get a bipartisan agreement to keep the government open.

I get it. You are losing seats all around the place. The popularity of the Republican Party has never been lower. You are all panicked. But the election isn't until March. Donald Trump can take all of you on his luxurious plane to Pennsylvania at another time. But today, we ought to be focused on the people's business. Next week, we are supposed to be off. So you have all the time in the world next week to be able to go with Donald Trump on a political excursion.

When I think about what is at stake and we are delaying votes on a continuing resolution and on further negotiations because people are more interested in the political rally in Pennsylvania, this takes my breath away.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are, again, at a very urgent moment here for our country. We have a lot to do, and we ought to be working in a bipartisan way to keep the government open. That ought to be everybody's priority. Quite frankly, we ought to be focused on that more than on a bill that is a sound bite that is going nowhere.

In fact, this bill was so important to my Republican friends that it never had a hearing or it never went through a markup. It just miraculously appeared at the last minute in advance of this anti-choice rally coming up.

But with all that is going on right now, I mean, with the threat of a shutdown, I am looking at Donald Trump's tweet:

``Will be going to Pennsylvania today in order to give my total support to Rick Saccone, running for Congress in a special election (March 13). Rick is a great guy.''

That is where the President's head is today. And he is taking a bunch of Republicans with him. Rather than negotiating a bipartisan deal that will help keep the government running, that will help the DREAMers, that will help our kids, that will help community health centers, that will help our hospitals, and that will help our veterans, the focus is on a political rally in Pennsylvania. This is unbelievable. Cancel the rally--you have until March 13--and, instead, focus on the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus.

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

Let me respond to the gentlewoman from Wyoming because I just want to make sure I am clear here.

There are less than 35 hours left before the government shuts down. I think that is a pretty big deal that should concern Republicans and Democrats.

I want to be clear. I don't care if the President goes to Pennsylvania. He can fly on his nice jet, enjoy lifestyles of the rich and famous or whatever he does, and go anywhere he wants in this country. I don't care where he travels to.

What we object to is the fact that this House is going to recess during this critical time so that he can bring along a whole bunch of Republican Members of Congress to be part of a political event at this crucial moment when the government is about to shut down. I find that astonishing.

The gentlewoman talks about how we owe it to the men and women in uniform to make sure we support our military. Do you think our men and women in uniform want us to take a break right now so that Republican Members can join the President on his fancy jet and go to Pennsylvania for a political rally? Is that where the priorities of this Republican majority really are?

I guess it is a habit. The last time we almost had a shutdown, in December, the Republicans took a break so that they could go to the White House for a party to celebrate their tax bill.

I am sorry. I know a lot of Republicans in my district and across the country who I don't think prioritize parties and political rallies over us doing our business. Either postpone the political rally or have the President go without Members of Congress. But the idea to recess until after 7 at this crucial moment when so much is in the balance I find just unbelievably beyond the pale.

Mr. Speaker, for months the majority has been holding the healthcare of 9 million children and over 9 million individuals, including seniors and pregnant women, hostage while they passed tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. Well, time is up. With each day that we fail to act, our constituents face uncertain times. It is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, even President Trump says he agrees that we need to act on CHIP. Just this morning he tweeted: ``CHIP should be part of a long- term solution, not a 30-day or a short-term extension.''

Well, here is the chance to stop playing politics with CHIP--and community health centers as well--and do just that. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative McEachin's bill, H.R. 4820, the Advancing Seniors and Kids Act.

This bill would restore certainty and stability to so many of our vulnerable citizens by responsibly addressing critical healthcare priorities. It permanently reauthorizes CHIP; it reauthorizes community health centers for 2 years; and it includes other vital healthcare programs that provide relief to pregnant women, seniors, and many more.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman from Wyoming that I am not going to vote for the CR because it doesn't do anything for community health centers and doesn't do anything to alleviate the burden of DSH payments for the hospitals that provide to vulnerable communities and doesn't fund Veterans Health the way we want it to. There is a whole bunch of stuff.

I just want this process to move forward so we can get back to negotiating and actually get a deal that is bipartisan that we all can be proud of. That is why--tell your Members: Please don't go on this political rally today. Instead, let's keep this House going and let's do the people's work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Iowa: the process stinks.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as long as the gentlewoman doesn't have any other speakers, I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say to all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, that this process is lousy. This is yet another closed rule. The bill before us didn't even go through committee. There was not a hearing. There was not a markup. It just miraculously appeared right before an anti-choice rally, and here it is, take it or leave it. That is not the way this place is supposed to be run.

At some point, no matter what your ideology is, no matter what you believe about some of these issues, you have to be for a more open process, a more deliberative process. This diminishes the House of Representatives. This is not what the people, I don't care what the political party or ideology may be, want from their Congress. They want a more open and transparent process.

Mr. Speaker, this bill before us, as I said before, is a sound bite. It is going nowhere, but it has been introduced, and we are going to be voting on it purely for political purposes.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the majority whip announced: ``Upon conclusion of debate on H.R. 195''--that is the CR--``the House will recess until 7 p.m.''

Recess? I mean, recess? With all that is at stake, we are going to recess?

This isn't a time for recess or a political rally.

Shame on Republicans who are delaying action in this House on moving the process forward on a continuing resolution, to try to buy some time to make it better, hopefully, so that it can earn bipartisan support. Shame on them for going to a political rally instead of staying here and doing their job.

This is the time to responsibly fund government. Those of us on the Democratic side have a lot of issues with what the House leadership is ramming through in terms of a CR. We were not part of that discussion. We were not asked what our values are and what we think is important. This is purely a product that the Republicans negotiated with Republicans.

My hope is that we have time to make it better, but when you recess until 7, not to make it better, not to negotiate, but so that Republicans can go to a political rally, shame on you for doing that with all that is at stake.

Our soldiers don't want us to recess. Those who depend on community health centers don't want us to recess. Our veterans don't want us to recess. Yet everybody's perfectly fine on the other side of the aisle with taking a break; no big deal; no rush, nothing, as we get closer and closer to this crisis.

At some point we need responsible leadership in this House, and that begins with a return to regular order, a more open and transparent process, a respect for the views of the minority, and it means prioritizing the business of the American people.

I will say funding the government is more important than a political rally in Pennsylvania.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary time.

Mr. Speaker, the Chamber finds itself in much the same position it was in on September 8, December 7, and December 21. Those were the other three continuing resolutions that we passed to try to get through here, but we are rushing again with one of the majority's short-term continuing resolutions with days to spare--actually, tomorrow--one day to spare until the great Government of the United States closes for business.

Now, you might think that would be the most important thing on the minds of the majority and of the United States Government, but it isn't because we are not going to get to vote on this tonight until 7 p.m.-- and all the people in the country who are holding their breath to see whether they are going to be laid off, the Federal workers, and all the other things that go with that devastating thing.

Let me remind you that the last time the government had a shutdown, $24 billion was lost to the economy, a lot of it to laid-off workers, and also the fact that large numbers of facilities owned by the government have stores and newspaper stands in them that were also closed.

But, no, we are not in any hurry today. Nobody is concerned about it, and the President of the United States and several Members of the House have gone to a political rally in Pennsylvania. They are trying to save a congressional seat there of a person who was forced to step down. That, obviously, is of more importance to them than whether or not this government continues to function.

That is a tragedy, Mr. Speaker, but that is what we have been putting up with for a long time.

I don't recall a time we have had four continuing resolutions in probably a month and a half, but here we are, and I bet you that we will come back in February and do yet another one.

Now, my colleagues who have gone to Pennsylvania could have gone next week--because we are taking another week off back to the district next week--and not caused this great hubbub today, which is one of the most important days in the life of the Nation as to whether we are going to continue to be the Government of the United States.

It is tragic, isn't it?

I remember I was on the floor the last time it shut down, and at midnight I had said: The government of the United States is now closed. I would

hate to be up here to have to say something like that again.

I don't know what else to call it except incompetence. That certainly comes as close to the definition as I can make.

But this latest proposal that we will not vote on until after 7 p.m.--and I understand that will inconvenience some people, but I do hope that other people will be able to stand the suspense. This is the fourth continuing resolution since the end of the fiscal year in September, and it will run, as I said before, through February 16, where I bet you we do another one.

If past is prologue, we probably will find ourselves back because what we do in this House now is be a standby person while the majority goes from one self-imposed crisis to the next. And much like the proposals before it, this continuing resolution is not the product of bipartisan negotiations. It was written solely by the majority without a single Democratic fingerprint anywhere on the bill.

America, pay heed to that. If this government should shut down, this problem is solely that of the Republican Party. We were not asked for our input when it was written in the back room, but since its public release hours ago, the majority has being asking for our support and saying what a shame it is, what a shame that we who don't even believe in this particular thing are not out there beating the drum for it.

But that is not how it works. The majority cannot craft this bill solely by itself and fail to address the matters that we agree we need to take action on and then criticize us for not supporting this partisan proposal.

We had an idea we would come to this point for some time, and I think everybody will agree with me, certainly on my side, and I suspect on both, that our leader, the minority leader, Nancy Peolsi, certainly made herself clear all the way through as to what it would take to get the votes of the Democrats in the House. But there was no consideration given to that, and yet they are asking us for votes.

This stopgap measure continues to just chip away at the Affordable Care Act--and I know my colleague said he was happy about that--by targeting some key funding mechanisms under the law. I suppose I probably did the rule on at least the vast majority of all the times repeal and replace was the fashion here, and I have always asked every single time: Why does the Republican Party want to take healthcare away from people? I have never gotten an answer to that, but I am totally convinced, after all this time, that that is exactly what they want to do.

Since the majority waived the rules requiring the provisions to be paid for for the healthcare act, it is actually a massive tax cut for the health insurance industry. It comes on the heels of the majority's tax cut for the wealthy and corporations, which represents the largest transfer of wealth from working families to the wealthy that our Nation has ever seen. It is a bill that made tax cuts for corporations permanent.

Now, the continuing resolution before us today includes a temporary reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides healthcare for 9 million of America's children. That was only to be for 6 years. But, as you heard already from a previous speaker this morning, had it been made permanent, it would save over $6 billion. I fail to understand the economic benefits of what they are doing here.

Mr. Speaker, why is the majority giving permanent tax cuts to corporations but it won't even give permanency to children in need of healthcare? The majority believes that a temporary reprieve on CHIP will force us to vote for this misguided plan. But what about the community health centers? What about improving healthcare for veterans?

The continuing resolution turns a blind eye to victims in desperate need of help in the wake of some of the worst hurricanes, mudslides, and wildfires our Nation has ever experienced and to 700,000 DREAMers who remain at risk of being deported following President Trump's decision to end DACA.

Remember what DACA was about. We asked young people who had been brought to the United States by their parents at a very young age to come out and to register and say that they were undocumented and that we would protect them as a way to citizenship. But instead, that was taken away from them, and they face deportation and are being deported daily--and it is an emergency.

But it also fails to take any action, this particular CR does, on bipartisan priorities like the pension crisis, veterans healthcare, and, as I said, the community health centers.

What has the majority prioritized instead of crafting a long-term spending bill that deals with these urgent issues? Ideological crusades like undermining financial reform laws and attacking women's health.

We had a wonderful debate just before this bill came on the floor of a thing called Born-Alive. We passed a bill I think unanimously, and I think it was done by voice vote, in 2002, that any infant born in an abortion setting would be given every care in the world, and, in fact, we didn't even need that bill. That is a given.

At the same time, though, that we are debating that on the floor today, that is to do every medical thing possible, the administration announced that, if a provider--a nurse, a doctor, or anybody in a medical setting, and they don't have to give any reason for this--if they personally or for some other reason, morality reason, decide they do not want to treat a patient before them, they don't have to.

Think about that a minute. Well, you know what I am trying to say here. It is more than ironic. It is stupid. But we sort of get used to that.

A separate bill on the floor today, H.R. 2954, would weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a thing hated by this Congress, their ability to respond to the problematic trends in the mortgage market. So here we go again. The CFPB has already saved over $12 billion for consumers.

Another measure that will be considered this week, H.R. 4712--that was the one I mentioned a minute ago--tries to shame and scare doctors out of providing constitutionally protected abortion services. The bill this morning gives doctors and medical professionals up to 5 years in prison just for practicing medicine to the best of their ability.

And all the while, the majority has been ignoring the elephant in the room and we march toward another government shutdown, and the American people and the world are once again forced to wonder whether the greatest superpower on this planet can keep the lights on. Surely, this is no way to run the Government of the United States.

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

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

For months, the majority has been holding the healthcare of 9 million children and more than 9 million individuals, including seniors, pregnant women, and veterans, hostage while they pass the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

Well, the time is up, and with each day we fail to act, our constituents face uncertain futures. This is wrong. Mr. Speaker, even President Trump agrees we need to act on CHIP. Just this morning, he tweeted: ``CHIP should be part of a long-term solution, not a 30-day or a short-term extension.''

Well, here is our chance to stop playing politics, except we can't do it until 7 o'clock this evening because the President and so many Members of the House are in Pennsylvania at a political rally. I guess this wasn't as important as we thought it was.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative McEachin's bill, H.R. 4820, the Advancing Seniors and Kids Act. This bill would restore certainty and stability to so many of our most vulnerable citizens by responsibly addressing critical healthcare priorities.

It permanently reauthorizes CHIP, saving us $6 billion. It reauthorizes the community health centers for 2 years and includes other vital healthcare programs that provide relief to pregnant women, seniors, and so many more.

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

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant minority leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he is prepared to close? I have no further speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, my good friend, Mr. Cole, seems almost to be desperate to have us vote for this continuing resolution, which says to me that the majority doesn't have enough votes to pass it. Somehow by saying that because the Democrats will not support this farce, then we are going to be responsible for it. But, frankly, my good friends are three for three on government shutdowns just since I have been a Member of Congress. Nobody is going to believe that, with all the excess numbers of votes here--I think you have 23 more Members have than we have got-- we are at fault.

But, anyway, let's get to the business here.

Instead of treating this like the serious issue that it is, the President is treating it like another reality show. He has suggested that Democrats would certainly be blamed for the majority's inability to keep the government running. But he is wrong about that, too. Just this week, a poll from Hart Research Associates found that the public would blame the majority by a double-digit margin. That gap grows wider when you look specifically at independent Americans.

History shows this to be true. When the majority shut down the government over the Affordable Care Act in 2013, a majority of the public placed the blame on them, not President Obama. We saw similar results when former Speaker Gingrich engineered shutdowns in both 1995 and 1996 because he thought the seat given to him on Air Force One did not fit his stature. The American people then blamed the Republican congressional majority, not President Bill Clinton. That is because facts matter, and the fact here is that the majority chose a partisan approach that threatens our ability to keep the government functioning.

But this discussion should not be centered on blame. It is about whether the Republican majority can even govern. Holding the White House, the Senate, and the House comes with great responsibilities, and, obviously, the most basic one--and we all understand this--to start with is keeping the Government of the United States running.

Yet we are confronted all the time with this problem: Are we going to be able to pay the bills and keep things going?

That is so humiliating for America. There is no other word for it.

But this majority, as pointed out before, just lurches from crisis to crisis to crisis, and they lurch around from one deadline to the next without any plan. All the time, all you need to do is ask to let us work together, let Democrats in on your backroom plans. We never get to see that. We are never consulted and never a part of any plan.

Let me remind everyone watching that the last Republican shutdown in 2013 cost the economy an estimated $24 billion. Federal loans to small businesses, homeowners, and families were halted, and numbers of great Federal employees were furloughed. Federal permitting was stopped. Hundreds of patients at the National Institutes of Health were unable to enroll in possible lifesaving clinical trials. Federal scientific research was also put on hold. We had five Nobel Prize-winning scientists working for the Federal Government at that time, and four of them were furloughed.

The majority apparently thinks it has the votes to go it alone on this bill, but I don't think so anymore. We thought so when I wrote this. But they think we are going to prevent a repeat of all that carnage. It is a shame that they squandered a chance to work with us to craft a bipartisan bill. Frankly, I think it is tragedy, and I think it is no way to run the government.

Without question, we could have kept the government running while addressing the priorities that Members of both parties agree on, like we used to.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, the rule, and the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 694 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 694, which provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 4712, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. This important bill ensures medical care and legal protection for abortion survivors, protects their mothers from prosecution, and holds abortion providers accountable.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not duplicative as some have suggested. It simply augments current law: the Born-Alive Infants Act and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which the House passed in 2002 and 2003, respectively, with very strong bipartisan support.

Current law includes, in the Federal definition of a person, infants who are born alive no matter the method of birth or the stage of their development. Current law, Mr. Speaker, also provides criminal penalties for physicians who provide partial-birth abortions.

What current law does not provide, however, is enforceable protection for those children who are born alive after a failed abortion attempt and denied care, nor does it provide criminal penalties, Mr. Speaker, for those who perform or knowingly ignore these actions.

Mr. Speaker, there are horrific stories of children born alive during abortions and are either gruesomely left for dead or deliberately killed once born. Even more, the abortion industry is fully aware of the risk of a child being born alive during an abortion, especially if the abortion occurs once the child is gestationally 18 to 20 weeks old or more, the age at which we know a child is able to survive if given the proper neonatal care.

Take the story, Mr. Speaker, of Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor who testified before the House Judiciary Committee in 2015. She said: ``Instead of dying, after 18 hours of being burned in my mother's womb, I was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in Los Angeles on April 6, 1977. My medical records state: `Born alive during saline abortion' at 6 a.m.

``Thankfully, the abortionist was not at work yet. Had he been there, he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation, or leaving me there to die. Instead, a nurse called an ambulance, and I was rushed to a hospital. Doctors did not expect me to live.

``I did. I was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy, which was caused by a lack of oxygen to my brain while I was surviving the abortion. I was never supposed to hold my head up or walk. I do.''

She concluded: ``If abortion is about women's rights, then what were mine?''

Some abortion providers, Mr. Speaker, are unwilling to respect the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, such as Priscilla Smith, who testified at a House Judiciary Committee hearing in 2015, saying that she didn't believe it would be a violation of the previous Born-Alive Infants Protection Act if a baby were killed outside the womb as long as the baby wasn't ``viable.''

Ms. Smith went on to assert some fetuses are never viable. She made these claims notwithstanding the fact, Mr. Speaker, that viability is not a factor, even under existing law, in determining whether an infant deserves protection under the law. The law protects infants born alive at any stage of development; and, therefore these abortion survivors are entitled to the same degree of care that would be received by any other babies of their age.

The bill we are debating today, Mr. Speaker, would impose enforceable criminal penalties for clinics that do not treat survivors with proper medical care. There is, sadly, evidence that clinics fail to provide this care.

Deborah Edge, a former abortion clinic employee, wrote an op-ed about her experience. She said: ``I was the doctor's right-hand person in the operating room, and just like those employees of Dr. Gosnell''--who we know was

one of the most horrific abortionists to date, guilty of first degree murder in the cases of at least three babies--``I saw the abortionist puncture the soft spot in the baby's head or snip its neck if it was delivered alive.''

The abortion providers, Mr. Speaker, who neglect to provide appropriate professional care to these babies, or worse, who kill them once they are born, must be held accountable.

Finally, I believe it is very important to note, to counter some of the things you will hear from the other side of the aisle, that this bill provides crucial protections for women. This bill protects women who seek abortions by prohibiting them from being prosecuted under the law.

H.R. 4712 also empowers women. It allows them to sue abortionists who don't provide protection for aborted babies who are born alive. This is very important, Mr. Speaker. Take the case of a woman named Angela who went to a clinic in Orlando, Florida, when she was 23 weeks pregnant.

Angela received pills to begin contractions to induce an abortion. After an hour of labor, Mr. Speaker, Angela delivered her baby, alive, into a toilet. Angela had her friend call 911 to request help to save her baby, but when the paramedics arrived on the scene, clinic staff reportedly turned them away. The fire department's incident report said they had no contact with the patient.

After the death of her son, Rowan, Angela wrote the following: ``The very moment I saw my son was alive, nothing else in the whole world mattered but Rowan's safety . . . Only one thing mattered to me: getting Rowan help. I begged repeatedly.''

Tragically, the abortion clinic not only refused but also, apparently, sabotaged Angela's call for help.

The bill that we are debating today, Mr. Speaker, would give women like Angela the ability to sue abortionists who do not comply with the law's requirements to give medical attention to children born alive like baby Rowan.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule to allow consideration of H.R. 4712, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Mr. McGovern. We have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to spend a number of hours together up in the Rules Committee. It is always great to manage debates with Mr. McGovern on the other side of the aisle because you are left with, number one, no doubt about where he stands. But number two, a target-rich environment as well, Mr. Speaker.

I would just say a couple of things. First of all, casting aspersions on this bill when my colleagues say this bill is nothing more than a political stunt or a political sound bite or a partisan talking point, I can't imagine, Mr. Speaker, that they really believe that describing legislation--they may disagree with the legislation--but for us to have to be on the floor of this body talking about babies who are born alive and who are killed at the hands of abortionists is far more than a political sound bite.

I think Mr. McGovern, my colleague, was saying that we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that is rhetoric that we don't need and rhetoric that is absolutely inaccurate in terms of describing the important efforts that we have underway here.

I also would hope, Mr. Speaker, that our colleagues in the other body, in particular, the Democrats in the other body--Mr. Schumer and the others over there--were watching Mr. McGovern just now. If the issue really is, Let's get to work and let's get a deal done, that deal is in their hands.

Mr. McGovern well knows that you have got to get 60 votes in the United States Senate to get a deal. We are in the position today where, of the long list of items Mr. McGovern mentioned, I would say he failed to mention the single most important obligation we have, which is to ensure that we get resources to our military.

The reality of the situation we are facing today, at a moment when our Nation faces grave threats, at a moment where we are having servicemen and -women killed in training accidents--more killed in training accidents in the last year than were killed in combat in the last year--we in this body have failed to do our duty.

The reality of this, for people to understand, is that the Democrats in the United States Senate are holding funding for defense hostage because they want amnesty for illegal immigrants. That, Mr. Speaker, is something that I think is absolutely indefensible.

So I hope that Mr. McGovern's colleagues in the Senate were watching him, were listening to the concern he has about the sense of urgency with moving forward.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we could have a deal today, if the Democrats would stop holding spending hostage, stop holding the resources our military needs hostage in order to grant amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), my friend and colleague and the sponsor of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the strongest, most honorable and admirable defenders of life in this body, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand why my colleague on the other side of the aisle doesn't want the President to be traveling to Pennsylvania. He doesn't want him to be traveling, I am sure, to any battleground States. It didn't work out very well for his party in 2016, when the President, very effectively, did just that all over the country.

I would also say that it is brave for my colleague to read a tweet of the President here on the House floor. I think the last time that the two of us were here together, we discussed the fact that it was a tweet from the President that scared his leadership away

from a crucial meeting at the White House to negotiate the budget cap deal, to negotiate exactly the deal that he is now so anxious to get done.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that work is underway. I can assure you that we could have a deal right now today if--and I will repeat it once again. I know my colleague is going to say that the Republicans control the Senate. But he knows, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that the rules of the Senate require 60 votes to get something done. That means today that if Chuck Schumer and the Democrats in the Senate are unwilling to agree to the cap deal, they are unwilling to provide the resources that we need to fund the military, the resources to make sure our men and women in uniform can defend the Nation, because they are holding out, and they are holding that hostage over amnesty. We could get it done today if they would be willing simply to come to the table and compromise and stop holding our troops hostage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague from Massachusetts is so concerned about the government shutdown, about children's health, about providing relief for healthcare, then I assume that he will be voting ``yes'' for the CR that comes to the floor later today, which, in fact, does extend CHIP, which, in fact, does help to provide relief from the terrible medical device tax, and which will keep the government open. I think that, if he wants to make sure that his objectives are met, there is a simple solution to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is left on each side?

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman prepared to close?

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

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

I agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, my colleague from Massachusetts. There is shameful action underway in this Congress, and that shameful action is the fact that, I will say once again, we are in a situation where our men and women in uniform have not received the appropriations that they need to do the job that we are asking them to do. And the reason they haven't--we have passed an authorization bill through this body; we have passed an appropriations bill through this body, but the Democrats in the Senate are refusing to act. The Democrats in the Senate who hold the key to getting 60 votes in the United States Senate are refusing to act. The reason they are refusing to act, Mr. Speaker, is because they want amnesty for illegal immigrants, and they are holding hostage the extent to which we are able to provide resources to fund our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous amount of urgency on both sides of the aisle. I respect my colleague from Massachusetts and I respect his frustration, but I do not respect, Mr. Speaker, the extent to which he is accusing us of shameful behavior.

We are on this floor today talking about a bill that will protect babies who are born alive after abortions. The shameful behavior is that, on the other side of the aisle, they want to talk politics, they want to talk posturing, they want to talk process. They don't want to talk about babies who are born alive after abortion. I know why they don't want to talk about it, because it is uncomfortable. They would rather ignore that it is actually happening, but we can't ignore it.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his leadership in serving on this committee, and I thank Mr. Cohen for his very eloquent explanation.

Let me say that I stand with these women, Jenny R., Kathy L., Lindsey, and Taias, women who have experienced the tragedy of losing a child, wanting a child, and wanting the protection of Roe v. Wade. I stand with these women.

I rise today to again ask the question: Why do we divide over the wonderment of birth?

I am reminded of H.R. 2175, passed in 2002, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was widely supported.

Now, we come on the eve of a failed administration in its first year to stand as if we are doing something for those who are coming here-- and I have great respect for their position of pro-life--but it doesn't mean that we must undermine the Constitution, add mandatory minimums, make up needs where there are no needs. That is what this particular bill does.

This amendment to H.R. 4712 is clearly involving and intruding into a process between the mother, the doctor, the family, and her God. There is no evidence of lawbreaking that has been uncovered that necessitates congressional involvement.

Abortion is a proven safe, legal, and humane practice. It has to be that way under the law. But we are in the middle of violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court cases by passing this legislation: up to 5 years in prison, a threat of financially crippling lawsuits, and, of course, shutting down those health facilities that we absolutely need.

Let me be very clear: we should be dealing with this shutdown that the Republicans are planning and moving forward. The reason we should be dealing with the shutdown is because law enforcement officers have no money, our clinics have no money.

Madam Speaker, passing by the Capitol Police, it made me think of my own law enforcement officers in Houston, Texas. Because we do not have a budget, we do not have appropriations, we are about to shut down the government. We have a CR. There is no funding for police officers. There is no funding for the desperate people who have been impacted by Hurricanes Harvey, Maria, and Irma. No funding whatsoever.

I salute the Senate and the Senate Democrats for standing firm for those people. There are no moneys for federally qualified health clinics. There are no moneys for children's health insurance.

You are not doing your job, and here we are trying to create mandatory minimums on a bill that is not necessary. I believe we should try to keep this government open with the right kind of law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4712, the ``Born- Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.''

First of all, the majority's failure to govern and address the priorities of the American people is staggering as we are faced with a fourth continuing resolution finding ourselves four months into the fiscal year.

The majority has yet to come up with a long term spending bill rather than an incomplete stop gap that only covers the government until February 16.

Republicans have wasted time creating the GOP Tax Scam and now Republicans are still wasting time debating this anti-women bill once again while there is no DACA solution and hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have grown up in this country and greatly contribute to society are facing unfair deportation.

I strongly oppose this latest attempt by the Republican House majority to limit women's rights to safe and legal abortions.

H.R. 4712 amends the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act--a 2002 law that the pro-choice community did not oppose.

This bill, however, adds penalties to the law and an entirely new section in which Congress attempts to intrude directly into medical practice of abortion care for anti-choice ideological purposes.

Anti-choice lawmakers say this new bill is necessary because some babies ``survive'' abortion procedures.

They cite the now-discredited videos attacking Planned Parenthood as their evidence.

Of course, such allegations are untrue: newborns already have many legal protections, and there is no similarity between safe, legal abortion care and infanticide.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem.

No evidence of lawbreaking has been uncovered that necessitates congressional involvement.

Abortion practice is safe, legal, and humane; any evidence of wrongdoing can and should be handled under existing law.

If there is ever a case of harm or mistreatment of newborns, then of course, it should be investigated and prosecuted.

No such case exists here.

That makes it even clearer that H.R. 4712 must have other purposes; we believe the bill's true goals are to inflame the public with outrageous accusations, to interfere with medical care, and to intimidate doctors out of practice.

This legislation is consistent with the assaults that the Trump Administration and anti-abortion members of Congress in both the House and Senate have been undertaking throughout the 115th Congress and show no signs of ending.

The bill intrudes into medical practice, its mandate is so broad and the penalties so severe--up to five years in prison and the threat of financially crippling lawsuits--that one can only conclude that H.R. 4712 hopes to intimidate abortion providers out of practice.

This interference in medical care could also cause tremendous additional grief to some families making difficult decisions in heartbreaking cases.

We would not tolerate similar intrusion by politicians into any other medical specialty; abortion care is no different.

Finally, it is important to put this legislation into the proper context.

We are in the midst of an unprecedented assault against reproductive rights: this bill is just one in a litany to restrict a woman's right to choose while using women as political pawns with an extremist, anti- choice base.

Instead of spending time attempting to roll back women's constitutionally protected rights, this House should be advancing legislation that will reform our truly broken immigration and criminal justice systems.

The bill before us is offered for a simple purpose; to sensationalize opposition to abortion and serve as a political decoy to shut down our government.

The United States Supreme Court ruled over 40 years ago, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), that a woman's constitutional right to privacy includes her right to abortion.

Since this landmark decision, abortion rates and risks have substantially declined, as have the number of teen and unwanted pregnancies.

Restricting all access to reproductive and women's health services only exacerbates a woman's risk of an unintended pregnancy and fails to accomplish any meaningful overthrow of Roe v. Wade.

In recent years, state policymakers have passed hundreds of restrictions on abortion care under the guise of protecting women's health and safety.

Fights here in Congress have been no different.

In my state of Texas a law that would have cut off access to 75 percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state was challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015.

On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that provided the fail range of services would be required to have a hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements.

This requirement meant that only 7 clinics would be allowed to continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to women.

Texas has 268,580 square miles only second in size to the state of California.

The impact of the law in implementation would have ended access to reproductive services for millions of women in my state.

In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10 healthcare providers in the state of Texas.

The Supreme Court once again intervened on the behalf of Texas women to block the move to close clinics in my state.

It seems every month we are faced with a new attack on women's access to reproductive health care, often couched in those same terms.

But we know that's not really the case.

If my colleagues were so concerned about women's health and safety, they would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based proactive policies that improve women's health and well-being.

Instead, they are attacking Planned Parenthood in a back-handed attempt to ban abortion.

That is their number one priority. This is certainly not about protecting women's health, it's about politics.

Just as the 1988 Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel (or the Blue Ribbon Commission) sought to separate the question of ethics of abortion from the question ethics of using fetal tissue from legal elective abortions for medical research when laying the foundation for the 1993, NIH Health Revitalization Act (which passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support), we must separate the personal views of abortion from the legal issues of federal compliance.

Namely, the NIH Health Revitalization Act prohibits the payment or receipt of money or any other form of valuable consideration for fetal tissue, regardless of whether the program to which the tissue is being provided is funded or not.

A limited exception, and crux of the applicable issue of legality, lies with provision allowing for reimbursement for actual expenses

(e.g. storage, processing, transportation, etc.) of the tissue.

Planned Parenthood repeatedly maintains and supports that their affiliates involved with fetal tissue research comply with this requirement.

In fact, of the 700+ affiliate health care centers across the country, only 4 Planned Parenthood affiliates currently offer tissue donation service and of those 4, only 2 (California and Washington) offer fetal tissue donation services--that's 1 percent of all Planned Parenthood service centers.

The California affiliate receives a modest reimbursement of $60 per tissue specimen and the Washington affiliate receives no reimbursement.

It is worth noting that fetal tissue has been used for decades.

Since the 1920's researchers have used fetal tissue to study and treat various neurological disorders, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, immune deficiencies, cancers and life-threatening blood diseases.

One of the earliest advances with fetal tissue was to use fetal kidney cells to create the first poliovirus vaccines, which are now estimated to save 550,000 lives worldwide every year.

The most widely known application in the field of human fetal tissue transplantation has been the treatment of Parkinson's disease.

Many of our other common vaccines, such as polio, measles, chicken pox, rubella and shingles, have been developed through the use of fetal tissue or cell lines derived from fetal tissue.

When looking at the 1 percent of health care providers involved in fetal tissue donation and research, and no clear credible proof of illegal activity, it is obvious that attacks on Planned Parenthood are wholly misguided.

Planned Parenthood has one of the most rigorous Medical standards and accreditation processes in the country.

It is the only national provider that has developed a single set of evidence-based Medical Standards and Guidelines that define how health care is provided throughout the country.

Guidelines are developed and updated annually by a group of nationally-renowned experts, physicians, and scientists, including medical experts from Harvard and Columbia.

Planned Parenthood affiliates must submit to accreditation reviews that include 100 indicators (or high level areas of review) and over 600 individual Elements of Performance (or measures for review). Half of these relate to the provision of medical care and patient safety.

Violations of mandatory reporting regulations are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

It is no secret that the Center for Medical Progress is an extreme anti-choice organization with a goal of outlawing legal abortion procedures in this country.

To achieve that goal, they have shamelessly targeted Planned Parenthood and the funding that provides healthcare services to millions of women every year.

They continue to use deceptive tactics and secret videos to try and undermine Planned Parenthood.

Just like Live Action, the Center for Medical Progress is not a group that can be taken credibly.

The Center for Medical Progress is simply recreating a history doctoring and manipulating video intended to create misimpressions about Planned Parenthood.

It is a coordinated effort by anti-choice forces--not only on Planned Parenthood or a woman's right to choose, but on women's health care across the board.

Hundreds of thousands have already spoken up, including leading groups and communities such as the growing voice of our millennial generation.

My colleagues should be doing more to connect our youth and women to services that help them reduce their risk of unintended pregnancies and STD's, and improve their overall health through preventative screenings, education and planning, rather than restricting their access to lawfully entitled family-planning and private health services.

I urge all Members to vote against this bill.