Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Scalise, for yielding.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the section-by-section analysis of the resolution.

H. Res. 5

Adopting the Rules for the 118th Congress

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Adoption of the Rules of the One Hundred

Seventeenth Congress.

This section provides that the Rules of the 117th Congress

are the Rules of the 118th Congress, except for the

amendments contained in section 2 of the resolution and

orders contained in the resolution.

Section 2. Changes to the Standing Rules.

Initiatives to Reduce Spending and Improve Accountability.

Subsection (a)(l) replaces current ``pay-as-you-go''

requirements with ``cut-as-you-go'' requirements. The

provision prohibits consideration of a bill, joint

resolution, conference report, or amendment that has the net

effect of increasing mandatory spending within a five-year or

ten-year budget window. This provision continues the current

practice of counting multiple measures considered pursuant to

a special order of business which directs the Clerk to

engross the measures together after passage for purposes of

compliance with the rule and provides a mechanism for

addressing ``emergency'' designations.

Subsection (a)(2) strikes the ``Gephardt rule'' that

provides for the automatic engrossment and transmittal to the

Senate of a joint resolution changing the public debt limit,

upon the adoption by the House of a concurrent resolution on

the budget resolution, thereby avoiding a separate vote in

the House on the public debt limit legislation.

Subsection (a)(3) restores a point of order against net

increase in budget authority for amendments to general

appropriations bills.

Subsection (a)(4) restores a point of order against budget

reconciliation directives that increase net direct spending.

Increased Threshold for Tax Rate Increases. Subsection (b)

restores a requirement for a three-fifths supermajority vote

on tax rate increases.

Two Minute Votes. Subsection (c) provides that the Speaker

can reduce vote times in the House to not less than two

minutes on any question that follows another electronic vote.

The subsection also states that to the maximum extent

practicable, advance notice will be given when reduced voting

times are expected in a voting series.

Modifications to Calendar Wednesday. Subsection (d)

modifies the notice requirement to use Calendar Wednesday to

conform with the 72-hour notice requirement prior to

consideration of legislation.

Committee Authorization and Oversight Plans. Subsection (e)

restores the requirement that each standing committee (except

the Committees on Appropriations, Ethics, and Rules) vote to

adopt an authorization and oversight plan, which must be

submitted to the Committees on Oversight and Accountability

and House Administration no later than March 1 of the first

session of a Congress. The plan must include a list of

unauthorized programs and agencies within the committee's

jurisdiction that have received funding in the prior fiscal

year, or in the case of a permanent authorization, have not

received a comprehensive review by the committee in the prior

three Congresses. The subsection requires committees to

describe each program or agency that is intended to be

authorized in the current Congress or next Congress, and a

description of oversight to support reauthorization in the

current Congress. The subsection also requires the

plan include any recommendations for moving such programs or

agencies from mandatory to discretionary funding. When

developing these plans, committee chairs must coordinate with

other committees of jurisdiction to ensure that programs and

agencies are subject to routine authorization efforts.

The subsection also provides that committee authorization

and oversight plans may make recommendations to consolidate

or terminate duplicative or unnecessary programs and

agencies. Committees may make recommendations for changes to

existing law to address Federal rules, regulations, statutes,

and court decisions related to programs that are inconsistent

with Congress' Article I authorities, as well as provide a

description of other oversight activities that may be

necessary.

The subsection also requires the Committee on Oversight and

Accountability to report to the House no later than April 15

the authorization and oversight plans submitted by committees

together with any recommendations it may make to ensure

effective coordination of the plans.

Cost Estimates for Major Legislation to Include

Macroeconomic Effects. Subsection (f) restores the

requirement that the Congressional Budget Office and Joint

Committee on Taxation, to the extent practicable, incorporate

the macroeconomic effects of major legislation into the

official cost estimates used for enforcing the budget

resolution and other rules of the House. The subsection

requires, to the extent practicable, a qualitative assessment

of the long-term budgetary and macroeconomic effects of major

legislation, which is defined to cover legislation that

causes a gross budgetary effect in any fiscal year covered by

the budget resolution that is equal to or greater than 0.25

percent of the projected GDP for that year. This subsection

also allows the chair of the Committee on the Budget, or in

the case of revenue legislation the House member serving

as the Chair or Vice Chair of the Joint Committee on

Taxation, to designate major legislation for purposes of

this rule.

Ethics Reform. Subsection (g) directs the Committee on

Ethics to adopt rules which provide for a process to receive

complaints directly from the public.

Empaneling Investigative Subcommittee of the Committee on

Ethics. Subsection (h) codifies House Resolution 451, 110th

Congress, directing the Committee on Ethics to empanel an

investigative subcommittee or issue a report within 30 days

of the date a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner

is indicted, or criminal charges are filed.

Treatment of Evidence in Committee and Subcommittee

Investigations. Subsection (i) eliminates a requirement that

the Committee on Ethics adopt a rule allowing the use during

an ethics investigation of evidence presented in a related

criminal case where the respondent was convicted because this

is already contained in the committee rules of the Committee

on Ethics.

Designating Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Subsection (j) redesignates the Committee on Oversight and

Reform as the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Designating Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Subsection (k) redesignates the Committee on Education and

Labor as the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Subcommittees of Committee on Agriculture. Subsection (1)

permits the Committee on Agriculture to have six

subcommittees, codifying a separate order in effect since the

114th Congress.

Cybersecurity. Subsection (m) modifies the jurisdiction of

the Committee on Homeland Security to include functions of

the Department of Homeland Security related to cybersecurity.

Committees currently holding jurisdiction over cybersecurity

functions of DHS will retain a shared jurisdictional interest

in such functions.

Scope of Authority to Act in Continuing Litigation Matters.

Subsection (n) eliminates ``including, but not limited to,

the issuance of subpoenas'' in the description of authority

to act as successor-in-interest in continuing litigation

matters, such language being superfluous.

Record Votes on Measures Reported by the Committee on

Rules. Subsection (o) requires reports from the Committee on

Rules to include a depiction of recorded votes.

Access to the Hall of the House. Subsection (p) strikes

language providing Governors of Territories and the Mayor of

the District of Columbia access to the Hall of the House.

Resolution Declaring the Office of Speaker Vacant.

Subsection (q) strikes language from rule IX to allow any

member to offer a privileged resolution declaring the Office

of Speaker vacant.

Section 3. Separate Orders.

Holman Rule. Subsection (a) reinstates the ``Holman Rule''

which allows amendments to appropriations legislation that

would reduce the salary of or fire specific federal

employees, or cut a specific program.

Restoring Legislative Branch Accountability. Subsection (b)

states regulations adopted pursuant to House Resolution 1096,

117th Congress will have no force or effect in the 118th

Congress.

Requirement with Respect to Single Subject Bill. Subsection

(c) provides that, effective February 1, 2023, a bill or

joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor

submits a statement setting forth the single subject of the

bill or joint resolution. This statement must be included

with the statement required by clause 7(c) of rule XII

(Constitutional Authority Statements). A statement for any

bill or joint resolution introduced prior to the effective

date shall, to the extent practicable, be submitted by the

sponsor prior to committee or House consideration.

Question of Consideration for Germanenes. Subsection (d)

establishes a question of consideration on a special rule

that waives germaneness for an amendment. The question of

consideration is debatable for 20 minutes and is not subject

to any intervening motion.

Budget Matter. Subsection (e)(l)(A) provides the authority

for the chair of the Committee on the Budget to file

allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary

levels for the purpose of enforcing provisions of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Additionally, this

subsection states that the provisions of S. Con. Res. 14,

117th Congress shall have no force or effect.

Subsection (e)(l)(B) provides adjustment authority to the

chair of the Committee on the Budget for a bill, joint

resolution, amendment thereto, or conference report thereon

if the measure does not increase direct spending over five

or ten years. It additionally provides adjustment

authority to the chair of the Committee on the Budget to

take into account the most recent baseline published by

the Congressional Budget Office.

Subsection (e)(1)(C) allows the Majority Leader or his

designee, should the chair of the Committee on the Budget not

yet be elected, to file statements permitted under

subsections (f)(1)(A) and (f)(1)(B).

Subsection (e)(1)(D) allows the chair of the Committee on

the Budget (or the Majority Leader or his designee, should

the chair not yet be elected) to adjust an estimate under

clause 4 of rule XXIX to exempt the budgetary effects of

measures to protect taxpayers with taxable incomes below

$400,000 from an increase in audits above the most recent tax

year from the Internal Revenue Service.

Subsection (e)(2) establishes a point of order against

consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a

committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations) or an

amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon, which has

the net effect of increasing direct spending in excess of

$2,500,000,000 for any of the four consecutive 10 fiscal year

periods beginning with the first fiscal year that is 10

fiscal years after the current fiscal year. The levels of net

increases in direct spending shall be determined based on

estimates provided by the chair of the Committee on the

Budget.

Subsection (e)(3) requires the Congressional Budget Office

on any legislation that shows changes in mandatory spending

which cause a gross budgetary effect in any fiscal year

covered by the budget resolution that is equal to or greater

than 0.25 percent of the projected GDP for the current fiscal

year, to the extent practicable, to provide an estimate of

the inflationary impacts of that legislation. This subsection

also allows the chair of the Committee on the Budget to

designate major legislation for purposes of this order.

Subsection (e)(4) requires the Congressional Budget Office

on any legislation impacting either the Medicare Part A trust

fund or OASDI trust fund that causes a gross budgetary effect

in any fiscal year covered by the budget resolution that is

equal to or greater than 0.25 percent of the projected GDP

for the current fiscal year, to the extent practicable, to

display: (1) the impact of legislation on the Medicare Part A

trust fund's unfunded liabilities over a 25-year projection,

solvency projections, and the net present value of those

liabilities; and (2) the impact on the OASDI trust fund's

unfunded liabilities over a 75-year projection, solvency

projections, and the net present value of those liabilities.

This subsection also allows the chair of the Committee on the

Budget to designate major legislation for purposes of this

order.

Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills.

Subsection (f) provides for spending reduction account

transfer amendments and requires a spending reduction account

section to be included in all general appropriations bills.

Scoring Conveyances of Federal Land. Subsection (g)

reinstates the separate order from the 115th Congress

providing that any provision in a bill, joint resolution,

amendment, or conference report requiring or authorizing a

conveyance of federal land to a State, local government, or

tribal entity, shall not be considered as providing new

budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory

spending, or increasing outlays.

Member Day Hearing Requirement. Subsection (h) modifies the

Member Day hearing requirement to only occur at the full

committee level. Each standing committee (other than the

Committee on Ethics) must hold a Member Day Hearing during

the first session of the 118th Congress to receive testimony

from Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner on

proposed legislation within its jurisdiction. The subsection

permits the Committee on Rules to hold its Member Day Hearing

during the second session to receive testimony on proposed

changes to the standing rules for the next Congress.

Information to Committees of Congress on Request.

Subsection (i) requires that the chair of the Committee on

Oversight and Accountability be included as one of the seven

members of the committee making any request of an Executive

agency pursuant to section 2954 of title 5, United States

Code.

Remote Appearance of Witnesses. Subsection (j) provides

limited authorization to a chair

of a committee to allow witnesses to appear remotely at

committee and subcommittee proceedings. This subsection

applies only to witnesses appearing in a non-governmental

capacity and in accordance with regulations issued by the

chair of the Committee on Rules and printed in the

Congressional Record.

Deposition Authority. Subsection (k) provides the Permanent

Select Committee on Intelligence and each standing committee

of the 118th Congress (except for the Committee on Rules) the

authority to order the taking of a deposition by a member or

counsel of such committee and limits persons who can attend

depositions to members, committee staff, an official

reporter, the witness, and up to two, personal,

nongovernmental attorneys. Depositions taken under this

authority are subject to regulations issued by the chair of

the Committee on Rules and printed in the Congressional

Record.

Broadening Availability and Utility of Legislative

Documents in Machine-Readable Formats. Subsection (l)

instructs the Committee on House Administration, the Clerk,

an other officers and officials to advance

government transparency by continuing efforts to publish

documents of the House in machinereadable formats and

broaden their utility by enabling all House staff to

create comparative prints.

Improving the Committee Electronic Document Repository.

Subsection (m) directs the Clerk, the Committee on House

Administration, and other officers and officials to continue

to improve the existing electronic document repository

operated by the Clerk for use by committees. Such

improvements are intended to increase public availability and

identification of legislative information produced by House

committees, including votes, amendments, and witness

disclosure forms.

Providing for Transparency with Respect to Memorials

Submitted Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the

United States. Subsection (n) carries forward provisions that

clarify the procedures of the House regarding the receipt of

Article V memorials from the States by directing the Clerk to

make each memorial, designated by the chair of the Committee

on the Judiciary, electronically available, organized by

State of origin and year of receipt, and indicate whether the

memorial was designated as an application or rescission.

In carrying out this subsection, it is expected that the

chair of the Committee on the Judiciary will be solely

charged with determining whether a memorial purports to be an

application of the legislature of a state calling for a

constitutional convention or rescission of prior

applications. The Clerk's role will be entirely

administrative. The chair of the Committee on the Judiciary

will only designate memorials from state legislatures (and

not petitions from individuals or other parties), as it is

only state legislatures that are contemplated under Article V

of the Constitution.

In submitting each memorial to the Clerk, the chair of the

Committee on the Judiciary will include a transmission letter

that indicates it has been designated under this subsection.

The Clerk will make publicly available the memorial and the

transmission letter from the chair. Ancillary documentation

from the state or other parties is not expected to be

publicized.

War Powers Resolution. Subsection (o) continues a separate

order from the 117th Congress expressly providing that any

motion to discharge a measure introduced pursuant to section

6 or section 7 of the War Powers Resolution is not subject to

a motion to table.

Further Expenses for Resolving Contested Elections.

Subsection (p) authorizes such sums as may be necessary for

the Committee on House Administration to resolve contested

elections. Funds shall be available for expenses incurred

between January 3, 2023, and January 3, 2024. Amounts made

available under this subsection shall be expended in

accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on

House Administration.

Ethics Reform. Subsection (q) directs the Speaker to

establish a bipartisan task force to conduct a comprehensive

review of House ethics rules and regulations. The task force

is directed to submit a report to the Speaker, Majority

Leader, Minority Leader, and chair and ranking minority

members of the Committees on Ethics and Rules.

Exercise Facilities for Former Members. Subsection (r)

continues the prohibition on access to any exercise facility

that is made available exclusively to Members, Delegates, the

Resident Commissioner, former Members, former Delegates,

former Resident Commissioners, officers, and former officers

of the House and their spouses to any former Member, former

Delegate, former Resident Commissioner, former officer, or

spouse who is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying

Disclosure Act of 1995 or any successor statute, or who is an

agent of a foreign principal as defined in clause 5 of rule

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my good friend and the majority leader.

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

I begin by thanking my good friend from Massachusetts for his leadership of the Rules Committee over the last 4 years. While we certainly haven't always agreed, we have tried to always be agreeable while working with one another. I certainly associate myself with his remarks about the terrific work of the staff on both sides of the aisle for helping us facilitate the operation of the House over that 4-year period. I look forward again to working with my friend in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the rules resolution that will govern the House during the 118th Congress.

Determining the rules we will follow is one of the first and most consequential decisions we must make as a body at the beginning of each Congress. In many ways, the Rules of the House of Representatives serve to demonstrate where our priorities and values lie as an institution.

Make no mistake, the priorities of the new Republican majority are fully on display in this resolution.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, we are taking action to reopen the people's House and ensure that we, the people's elected servants, are here in Washington, D.C., doing our jobs.

For far too long, the House allowed Members to do their jobs from home without ever setting foot in Washington. What started out as a pandemic accommodation lasted far longer than necessary, but today, even President Biden admits that the pandemic is over.

It is time for the House of Representatives to return to our normal operating procedures, and it is time for the Members of Congress to actually show up to work. Today's rules package eliminates proxy voting and puts an end to remote committee proceedings.

We restore the requirement for committees to establish plans for how they will conduct much-needed oversight. Republicans have robust plans to ensure that we will hold the Biden administration accountable for its actions, but being a counterbalance to the administration will not stop there. With today's rules package, we will also establish a new select subcommittee, modeled on the Church Committee, to investigate the radical left's weaponization of the Federal Government in recent years.

We will also modify the jurisdiction of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic to ensure we investigate the origins of the virus and finally look into the financial and societal impacts of shutdowns.

We will establish a Select Committee on Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party to respond to threats posed by the CCP, ensure economic competitiveness for America, and protect human rights.

Other important changes in this resolution are those that are designed to address our out-of-control spending problem, which the former majority made vastly worse last Congress. In fact, when Democrats were in control of this Chamber, they spent so much money through partisan bills that they managed to drive this country into an inflationary crisis. Those aren't my words; those are the words of former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.

The American people elected Republicans to get our fiscal house in order, and get our fiscal house in order we will. That starts with making key changes to House rules to ensure we will instill some fiscal sanity in Congress. These changes reflect a return to budgetary rules that were in place for over a decade before Democrats removed them.

We will restore the CutGo rule, which requires us to offset any increase in mandatory spending with a corresponding cut in mandatory spending. No more will the House be able to use budget gimmicks and tricks to pretend increases in mandatory spending are paid for when they actually are not.

We will restore a requirement for a three-fifths majority to approve any tax rate increase. If this rule had been in place, the House would not have passed the massive tax increases the Democrats included in last year's reconciliation bill.

We will eliminate the so-called Gephardt rule, which allows the House to automatically suspend the debt ceiling upon passage of a budget resolution. Just as the American people have to live within their means, so, too, should the Federal Government.

Automatically suspending the debt limit may be the easy and expedient way, but on a matter as important as the national debt limit, what is easy and expedient is hardly appropriate. The American people expect us to make a decision on the national debt limit only after full and fair consideration and debate in the House. That starts with ensuring it will receive a separate, standalone vote on the floor.

Finally, we will remove the rule that allowed Democrats to simply ignore budget estimates for bills dealing with the COVID pandemic or climate change. Although it may sound controversial to my friends on the other side of the aisle, Republicans cannot and will not thrust our heads in the sand and ignore the effects of out-of-control Federal spending.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, but on the whole, I am very proud of today's rule package. It reflects Republican priorities and the priorities of the voters who elected us. It reopens this institution and ensures that all Members will be in Washington to do their work, as our constituents expect. It ensures that we will hold the Biden administration and the Chinese Communist Party accountable. It ensures that we will get our fiscal house in order.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the rules package, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend, a member of both the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), my very good friend who had so much to do with some of the extraordinary changes in this rules package.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be authorized to postpone the vote on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 5 to a designated time later today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair may reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question relating to House Resolution 5 that follows a 15-minute vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my good friend.

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

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

In closing, I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution establishing the rules of the 118th Congress. The changes we are proposing today will ensure that the institution is set on a path of success for the new Congress.

They will ensure that Members return to Washington and do their work here.

They will set up an institution to hold the Biden administration accountable.

They will put in place budgetary rules designed to prevent the kind of reckless spending spree Democrats recently engaged in.

I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me congratulate our incredible new House Democratic leadership team: Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark, and Pete Aguilar. It is a dawn of a new day here in Congress, as a new generation takes on the solemn responsibility of leadership.

Leader Jeffries has been tireless in his work to put people over politics. His steady leadership as chair of our Democratic Caucus, uniting our Members, harnessing their talent and diversity, and fighting tirelessly to make life better for American people is a source of inspiration for me and so many others.

It is also a privilege to be here with my good friend Tom Cole, someone who I respect greatly and who I know greatly respects this institution. We sit on opposite ends of the dais, but I admire Mr. Cole's leadership and the example he sets. Even when we don't see eye to eye, I am proud of our work to build an atmosphere of respectful dialogue on the Rules Committee.

We have done so not just among our Members but among our hardworking staff, and I thank our minority and majority staff, led by Don Sisson and Kelly Dixon, for all of their hard work.

I look forward to working with Mr. Cole and his team this Congress to continue our collaboration on issues of shared concern.

Mr. Speaker, as Leader Jeffries put it so succinctly this weekend, our Republican friends campaigned on the claim that they would fight against inflation and fight for the American people. Instead, all they have done is come to Washington and fight with each other.

In fact, what has become crystal clear over the past few days is the extent to which the Republican Party has been hijacked by an extremist MAGA faction, a faction not interested in governing but in their own egos, a faction not interested in compromise but in their own power, a faction not interested in putting people over politics but instead interested in putting their own political ambition over the people we serve.

Now here we are, nearly a week later, considering their deeply flawed rules package, the first legislation on the floor by this new majority, and they are using it to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics, attack women's access to abortion, make it easier for big oil companies to pollute, and interfere in ongoing criminal investigations into President Trump.

They are making it easier for billionaires and big corporations to avoid paying their taxes. Is that part of their contract with America? Is that their big plan to help everyday people? Because most people who read this package would think it must be a joke.

What I am concerned about is not just what is written down here. I am concerned by the backroom deals that Speaker McCarthy made with the Freedom Caucus in exchange for their votes. Like Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace said just this weekend: ``We don't have any idea what promises were made.''

This is unconscionable. We are only 1 week into this, and this is how they are running this place.

There is a report out by Punchbowl News, and let me read it. It said: ``There is also a secret 3-page addendum that McCarthy and his allies hashed out during several days of grueling negotiations with the House Freedom Caucus. This pact includes the most controversial concessions McCarthy made in order to become Speaker--three seats on the Rules Committee for conservatives, freezing spending at FY 2022 levels, a debt ceiling strategy, coveted committee assignments, and more.'' Is that what the Majority Leader meant when he talked about a new day and transparency?

These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They are essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right. The same Members of Congress who held this body hostage last week are the ones who ran interference for the January 6 insurrectionists, who tried to overturn a free and fair election.

Even the new Speaker of the House voted to overturn the 2020 elections. We couldn't even get a public acknowledgment from him on the 2-year anniversary of that horrific day, not even a tweet.

It is clear that Republicans welcomed the election deniers into their ranks with open arms, and now they are reaping what they have sown. The insurrectionists are in charge.

I am reminded of the words of President Kennedy: ``In the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.''

The American people get it. They rejected extremism in the last two elections. That is why they picked Joe Biden, and that is why the red wave turned into a pink splash.

My Republican friends still aren't listening, and in fact, they are still empowering the extremists. Don't take my word for it. Let's go through their rules package.

They are giving a single Member the ability to remove the Speaker at any time, letting a small, far-right faction hold their leadership hostage.

They are trying to shut down criminal investigations into the former President's wrongdoing.

They are making it easier to slash taxes on billionaire corporations while dismantling the social safety net.

They are giving committee chairs unbalanced discretion over which witnesses can testify; rejecting pandemic safety procedures like remote voting; trying to force an end to congressional staff unionization; and the icing on the cake, a new subcommittee to push QAnon conspiracies and launch fake investigations into nonexistent scandals. What is next, a rule requiring we all wear tinfoil hats?

This package is disrespectful, not just to this institution, but to the people who sent us here to govern.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Congressional Budget Office report from today titled: ``Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 23, the Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act.'' This nonpartisan report says that the GOP's IRS funding bill will add $114 billion to the national debt, so when people talk about taking steps to reduce the national debt, I am not sure what they are talking about.

[From the Congressional Budget Office, January 9, 2023]

Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 23, the Family and Small Business

Taxpayer Protection Act

Summary: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010

establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for

legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net

changes in outlays and revenues that are subject to those

procedures are shown above.

The Congressional Budget Office adheres to laws and

Congressional rules concerning the federal budget and to a

set of principles (called the Scorekeeping Guidelines)

created by the Congress. Those principles guide how the House

and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget

Office, and the Office of Management and Budget attribute

budgetary effects to legislation, with the goal of promoting

consistent treatment of estimated effects among those

agencies. (For more information on those guidelines, see

Congressional Budget Office, CBO Explains Budgetary

Scorekeeping Guidelines, January 2021, www.cbo.gov/ publication/56507.)

When a provision in an authorization bill provides funding

for administrative or program management activities, such as

when the IRS receives additional funding for administrative

activities, spending of those amounts can result in increases

in receipts. Guideline 14, however, directs scorekeepers to

exclude those increases when estimating the budgetary effects

of proposals that would provide additional mandatory funding

for such activities.

Guideline 14 was adopted in part to avert cases in which

possible, but uncertain, receipts were used to offset near-

term increases in spending resulting from the same bill. That

guideline is asymmetrical, however. That is, even though

increased receipts cannot be credited to a bill that would

increase administrative funding, estimated receipt losses

that might result from a decrease in such funding are

included in the estimated budgetary effects.

H.R. 23 would rescind unobligated funds provided by

paragraphs (1)(A)(ii), (1)(A)(iii), (1)(B), (2), (3), (4),

and (5) of section 10301 of Public Law 117-169. CBO estimates

that the bill would decrease outlays by $71 billion and

decrease receipts by $186 billion over the 2023-2032 period.

Both of those effects are included in accordance with

Guideline 14.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the Women's Health Protection Act.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) to discuss our proposal.

We heard a lot about inflation, but none of the first 12 bills that my Republican friends are bringing up have anything to do with inflation or mention inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my friends that over a million Americans died of COVID, including a Member-elect who was supposed to be sworn in in the last Congress. These remote procedures undoubtedly saved lives of Members and staff here in this Chamber. So, please, let's not diminish what the point of all that was about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is taking credit for the 72- hour rule, which we created in our rules package, but thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democrat whip.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend that the first bill they are doing is going to add $114 billion to the deficit. Enough.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar), who is the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman mentioned the 72-hour rule. Once again, I will say: You are welcome. Then she talked about this being the most open and transparent rule ever. Maybe the gentlewoman can share with us the secret 3-page addendum that we are reading about, because none of us have seen it. So much for transparency. I guess she is not going to share that with us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, again, for mentioning the 72-hour rule which has been mentioned many times. But I wrote it, and I thank the gentleman for keeping it.

But when I hear people talking about balanced budgets, give me a break. The first bill that my friends are bringing to the floor, according to CBO, adds $114 billion to the debt. We don't need any lectures from anybody on that side about balancing the budget. Give me a break.

Maybe the gentleman can, again, share with us the secret addendum that apparently was negotiated behind closed doors, so we actually know what agreements were made.

Four days and 15 votes, and there is only one change in the rules package going from five to be able to vacate the Chair to one. Well, there is a lot more to it. We all know that, but that is a big secret. So much for transparency.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that in the vast majority of cases we did comply with the 72-hour rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Mr. Speaker, following the vote on the previous question, Representative DeLauro will offer a motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to discuss that proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. Speaker, again, let me just ask, will anybody on the other side share with us the secret 3-page addendum that Speaker McCarthy negotiated with the Freedom Caucus so we can know what else was decided on, given away? I guess not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my friend, but really? I mean, come on.

What were the last 4 days about? I mean, again, days and days, and 15 roll call votes, and reporting by multiple sources tell us that there is this signed agreement with the House Freedom Caucus that deals with some of the most controversial concessions.

So, you know, I know it exists. It will come out sooner or later. Everybody is talking about transparency and openness. It would be nice if there was a little bit more transparency and openness from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, let me continue what I was beginning in the last exchange.

At least one GOP office apparently has the much-fabled 3-page House rules addendum. ``We are taking a look at it . . . we're just going through it,'' Rep. Ken Calvert, a Steering Committee member, tells Axios. Asked if Members have received a copy: ``I don't know if everybody has.''

Again, don't come to the floor and talk about transparency and openness and a new day. This is backroom politics. That is what this is about, secret deals that no one is going to know anything about until it is too late.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Oklahoma how many more speakers he has?

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, as well, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the last time House Republicans were in charge, they ended their time in power with a government shutdown. They controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, and they shut the government down and walked away.

Upon taking power once again, they began with a legislative shutdown, a shutdown where a far-right fringe held the incoming Republican leadership hostage and got them to give away everything, including their own dignity.

What is clear from all of this is that the Republican Party no longer cares about governing. This rules package is exhibit number one.

The American people sent us here because they want us to put people over politics. Sadly, this rules package puts politics first, empowering the extremists who are only interested in their own power.

As I have said again and again, if this new majority wants to work together in good faith, my door is open. If this is their plan, they have clearly chosen to become a party that embraces election deniers and extremists, and Democrats will not go along to get along.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I have had some harsh words for this rules package. Call it ``tough love.'' I care very deeply about this institution, about the work we do here, and the awesome responsibility of the decisions we make. I am glad that my friends kept the McGovern rule on the 72-hour and the McGovern rule that committees have to do hearings and markups before they come to the Rules Committee.

We weren't perfect, but overwhelmingly we kept our word.

This legislation does a great disservice to the people we represent, and it does not live up to the high standards that we should have for this institution. I believe that calling this House to a higher standard is the right thing to do.

But let me be clear that my criticism is reserved for the resolution we are considering and not for the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), whom I respect and admire as a person even when we strongly disagree, as we do today.

These rules are a giveaway to the far right, but this Congress need not be. If my Republican colleagues want to get anything done, it is clear that they are going to have to work together with Democrats to get things done.

Let's end the extremism and put people over politics to get stuff done.

People do not want government shutdowns.

People do not want to see us default on our financial obligations.

People want us to get stuff done and to keep the lights on.

The last two elections were a rejection of extremism. My friends predicted an overwhelmingly Republican majority in the last election, and instead, they got a pink splash because the American people, Democrats, Independents, and a lot of Republicans said: You are too extreme.

So put the extremism behind you. I urge the Speaker to work with Democrats and not just work with the small fringe group in the Republican Conference, but to work in a way to move the people's agenda forward.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, a ``no'' on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would say: Here we go again. For those of us who have served in the United States Congress, this is: Here we go again.

This is legislation that is attempting to be wrapped in mercy that is without mercy. First of all, it is without fact. It is extremely important to know that if you were here in the United States Congress you know the history because we have already passed the bipartisan Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which reiterates the fact that it is illegal to interfere with a newborn. They are protected from both intentional harm by healthcare providers and harm from medical negligence--plain and simple, period at the end of the sentence.

Why are we here today?

We are here today for news clips. We are here today for quotes and condemnation of the other side of the aisle that wants to be reckless with the life of a child.

I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that those of us who have given birth and those of us who have lost in the birth process are extreme lovers of those wonderful opportunities of life.

I refuse and reject condemnation of my personal self because I believe these decisions are with a God--the woman's God and the families' God--her faith, doctors, and, of course, the persons who are a part of the medical profession.

I have article after article that talks about the tragedy of partial- birth abortion, which is the name used more than a decade ago. They always find creative names to be able to be criminalized.

We heard from a member of the Rules Committee who said: How dare you grab up a child, put them in an ambulance, and take them hundreds of miles away from their family?

Or maybe the family who found out that the multiple abnormalities of their child would not allow them to live, and they had waited 8 years for this wonderful baby. The decisions, unfortunately, of neither life nor death come easily for these children. There is a painful existence marked by periods of breathing cessation and seizures when they are born.

Because my OB was unable to get a good image of the brain until the 13th week, we understand that these are personal decisions. We understand that these are painful decisions.

So I stand with those families, I refuse to condemn those families, and I refuse to be merciless. I am giving mercy in voting against this legislation. I am voting against it now.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 26, the BornAlive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would establish requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.

In the first week of the 118th Congress, extreme MAGA Republicans are launching attacks on reproductive freedom, intruding on medical decision-making, and keeping their promise to criminalize abortion nationwide with no exceptions.

H.R. 26 is a clear attack on health care providers and attempts to evoke power over the care that they provide to patients.

When the Senate attempted to pass this bill in 2019, 17 medical and public health organizations sent a letter in strong opposition to the bill stating that it represented ``a dangerous government intrusion into private health care decisions''.

This bill undermines medical professionals' training and critical judgment, minimizing their ability to determine the best medical treatment for their patients.

Medical professionals abide by a Code of Ethics during their career.

For lawmakers to undermine the work of medical professionals and attempt to prosecute them for doing what is right for their patients is inappropriate and misdirected.

This bill is a direct way to compromise the health and safety of patients.

A 2015 study published by the New England Journal of Medicine states that a baby's viability is the determining factor in the care that they receive.

The study states that ``active intervention for infants born before 22 weeks gestation is generally not recommended, whereas the approach for infants born at or after 22 weeks of gestation varies.''

Seeing that there are already standards in place to determine level of care, why should we as lawmakers intervene to override what medical professionals agree is the most appropriate medical treatment warranted by the circumstances.

To suggest that medical professionals would not provide equal and adequate medical attention to all patients is thoughtless, insulting, and uncivil.

For a party that advocated for minimal federal government interference and big government, Republicans are attempting to increase the federal government's jurisdiction over local governments.

Why should we as lawmakers seek to prosecute medical professionals that are simply doing their job?

This bill would force medical professionals to worry about criminal penalties and legislative interpretation when the appropriate medical care is already laid out.

This bill would remove a medical professional's ability to make the medically sound decision for their patient without government interference and the threat of repercussions.

This bill endangers infants because it puts Republican wishes ahead of appropriate medical care.

H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, is dangerous to both medical professionals and patients. Medical professionals would be placed under unnecessary scrutiny, when legislation and protocols are already in place for this situation.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill that would establish requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement written by Audrey Eisen titled: ``How The Abortion Ban Debate Became My Story.''

[From ACLU, Feb. 2, 2009]

How the Abortion Ban Debate Became My Story

(By Audrey Eisen)

I never thought that so-called ``partial-birth abortion''

would ever have anything to do with me. Why would it? I'm 34

years old and I desperately want children. My husband and I

have been together for eight years, married for four, and

trying to have a baby for two. Abortion was not something I

thought much about.

But earlier this year, all that changed.

In November of 2002, after fighting infertility and

experiencing the sadness of a miscarriage in July, we were

thrilled to find ourselves pregnant again. While still

apprehensive, we consciously decided to be excited--another

loss would hurt just the same, regardless of whether or not

we had allowed ourselves to be happy.

In the first few months, my endocrinologist performed

regular ultrasounds to ensure that the embryo was developing

normally. It was such a treat to be able to see our child

growing. I kept the pictures and my thoughts in a pregnancy

journal.

When it became evident that we were going to make it

through the first trimester, my endocrinologist referred me

to an obstetrician (OB). At my first appointment, the nurse

put a fetal heart monitor on my belly and, much to our

amazement, from a seemingly great distance, we heard the

characteristic ``whoosh'' of our child's heartbeat. We were

on top of the world thinking that, for sure, this one was

going to make it.

At 13 weeks, however, all this changed abruptly when,

during a routine ultrasound exam, my OB discovered our child

had

polydactyly (more than the normal number of digits). While at

first we thought it was just the hands, we later learned that

the feet were affected as well. At the time, my husband and I

thought it was no big deal--we had both known people with an

extra finger, and we were prepared to help our child live

with the condition. However, we soon found out that an extra

toe or finger were the least of our concerns: polydactyly is

associated with over 100 syndromes, most commonly Trisomy 13.

Trisomy 13 is characterized by multiple abnormalities, many

of which are not compatible with life beyond a couple of

months. Most fetuses with Trisomy 13 die in utero; of those

who make it to birth, almost half do not survive past the

first month; roughly three-quarters die within 6 months.

Long-term survival is one year. Unfortunately, neither life

nor death come easily for these children--theirs is a painful

existence marked by periods of breathing cessation and

seizures. Because my OB was unable to get a good image of the

brain during the 13th week ultrasound, we returned at 15

weeks.

The first thing my OB examined during this visit was the

fetal brain. He didn't say a word. I could tell he was

holding something back and asked that he tell me what he saw.

He said, ``It is not normal.'' The rest of the scan was a

blur as tears ran down my cheeks and those of my mother and

husband, who had accompanied me to the doctor's office that

day. Following the scan, the doctor left us alone to compose

ourselves. I cried with my whole body, from the depths of my

soul.

Shortly thereafter, I had other tests. These confirmed that

our baby had Trisomy 13.

At this point we discussed our options with a genetic

counselor. My husband and I both felt strongly that we did

not want our child to suffer; we decided to terminate the

pregnancy as soon as possible. I had an abortion on the first

day of my 16th week of pregnancy.

Soon after I had the procedure, I began to see news stories

about a new federal ``partial birth abortion'' ban. Like many

Americans, following the press on this issue over the past

several years, I had thought, ``My God, this must be

something horrible.'' But as I mourned the loss of my much-

desired pregnancy, I came to realize that if such legislation

passed, the right to safe second-trimester abortions like the

one I had might not remain available to those women who come

after me. While proponents of this ban claim that it is aimed

at one procedure performed late in pregnancy, the reality is

that it would prohibit the safest and most common procedures

used in the second trimester, well before fetal viability.

Without access to this care, I don't know how women will

endure if after routine prenatal testing they discover, as we

did, that their fetuses suffer from grave conditions

incompatible with life; I don't know how I would have

endured.

Two weeks following my abortion, we received a letter from

the genetic counselor. Our child had numerous abnormalities:

the brain, heart, and other internal organs were not

developing properly. Our child was also a girl and we miss

her very much. In our case, abortion was the only humane

choice. This choice must be preserved for the sake of all

women and their families. The American public needs to

understand the consequences of this ban and that the human

face of so-called ``partial-birth abortion,'' my face, could

be their own.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rules and the rules package.

In particular, I support the Women's Health Protection Act so women seeking reproductive rights will not be hunted down by bounty hunters.

As well, I am opposed to this rule because of the creation of a potential committee that, in fact, threatens our safety, security, and freedom. It is an unprecedented attack on our Nation's law enforcement agencies, our justice system, and our intelligence community, all for the extreme MAGA Republican political activities.

This does nothing to solve the actual problems facing the American people and even includes a possibility of defunding police.

Finally, I am glad that the last Congress indicated that when a million Americans died, for continuity of government, we had proxy voting. They wanted to save lives.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the underlying rules and the rules package. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 5, Adopting the Rules of the 118th Congress. Instead of building on the extraordinary work done by House Democrats in the 117th Congress, Republicans are choosing to lead off this term with legislation that attacks women's health freedoms, make it easier for companies to pollute without consequence, and hand out tax breaks to the wealthy and well connected.

This problematic Rules package is the product of non-transparent negotiations, backroom deals and promises that were made to appease the demands made by extremist members of the Republican Party to get them to vote or in some cases vote present for Speaker of the House.

Last week's catastrophic Speaker's election showed Americans how disorganized, chaotic, and inefficient the Republican leadership and Caucus can be.

Last week's chaos showed the American people how Republicans plan to govern for the next two years. This body will be ill managed, less transparent, slow moving, and will put forth legislation that will attack our freedoms and undermine our Nation's values.

Concessions made by Republican leadership last week will have devastating effects on this institution. The passage of this Rules package will pave the way for:

Any member to file a ``motion to vacate the chair,'' effectively holding the Speaker hostage;

Extreme right-wing members on key committees;

Putting an end to the possibility of Congressional staff unionization;

Reinstating the Holman Rules so Republicans can target civil servants who challenge them; and

Shut down criminal investigations into the previous president.

This problematic rule is creating more turmoil in the Republican ranks as members wrestle with the image of witnessing the Speaker being coerced into agreeing to give a small faction of the Republican Conference treats to appease them--including concessions to individual members for votes he needed to become Speaker.

It is not inconceivable that Republican members of the conference must show they are not being bullied into voting for this Rules bill.

The most problematic aspect of the rule is that it does not spell out what the Speaker agreed to give to his opponents so that the Congress and the American people know what the Speakership actually cost them.

This is the People's House--not the Republican or Democratic House-- any bargaining should be focused on the needs of the American people-- they must come first.

Throughout the last election cycle, Republicans campaigned on addressing inflation and lowering the cost of living for millions of Americans.

Ironically, the first bill they are introducing repays the wealthy donors that got them their majority through dark money contributions by making it easier for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans to cheat on their taxes.

We all may have varying beliefs about taxes, but we as Americans know that nothing in this life is free and that in order for our Nation to be a beacon of freedom we must have a strong defense, public assistance programs to help those in need, an education system that prepares young minds to lead, retirement programs that provided for our elder and disabled, and a healthcare system that cares for all in need of healthcare.

Passage of the rule will pave the way for Republicans to continue their assault on a woman's bodily autonomy and impede on medical decisions that should remain between medical professionals and their patient.

Although the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act does not criminalize abortion nationwide, make no mistake, that is their end goal, and the passage of this bill will get them one step closer to their sick idea of stripping all women of their rights.

There are concerns that language in the House Rules package would eliminate rules requiring spending offsets for bills that sell or transfer federal public lands and waters.

This will result in a loss of public access enjoyed by the 70 million American hunters and anglers that help support the $862 billion outdoor recreation economy in the United States. Additionally, giving away public assets with no return would be a loss for American taxpayers.

As a result, hunters and anglers are strongly opposed to this rule change, which would eliminate the necessity of spending offsets to sell or transfer public lands.

I urge all my colleagues to oppose this bill and see it for what it truly is:

An effort by Republicans to give tax breaks to the ultra-rich and the corporations who fund their campaigns, and

An effort to continue carrying out their distorted notion of America by decimating the programs set in place to help the Americans who depend on government assistance the most.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 5, Adopting the Rules of the 118th Congress. Instead of building on the extraordinary work done by House Democrats in the 117th Congress, Republicans are choosing to lead off this term with legislation that attacks women's health freedoms, make it easier for companies to pollute without consequence, and hand out tax breaks to the wealthy and well connected.

This problematic Rules package is the product of non-transparent negotiations, backroom deals and promises that were made to appease the demands made by extremist members of the Republican Party to get them to vote or in some cases vote present for Speaker of the House.

Last week's catastrophic Speaker's election showed Americans how disorganized, chaotic, and inefficient the Republican leadership and Caucus can be.

Last week's chaos showed the American people how Republicans plan to govern for the next two years. This body will be ill managed, less transparent, slow moving, and will put forth legislation that will attack our freedoms and undermine our Nation's values.

Concessions made by Republican leadership last week will have devastating effects on this institution. The passage of this Rules package will pave the way for:

Any member to file a ``motion to vacate the chair,'' effectively holding the Speaker hostage;

Extreme right-wing members on key committees;

Putting an end to the possibility of Congressional staff unionization;

Reinstating the Holman Rules so Republicans can target civil servants who challenge them; and

Shut down criminal investigations into the previous president.

This problematic Rule is creating more turmoil in the Republican ranks as members wrestle with the image of witnessing the Speaker being coerced into agreeing to give a small faction of the Republican Caucus treats to appease them--including concessions to individual members for votes he needed to become Speaker.

It is not inconceivable that Republican members of the delegation must show they are not being bullied into voting for this Rules Bill.

The most problematic aspect of the Rule is that it does not spell out what the Speaker agreed to give to his opponents so that the Congress and the American people know what the Speakership actually cost them.

This is the People's House--not the Republican or Democratic House any bargaining should be focused on the needs of the American people-- they must come first.

Throughout the last election cycle, Republicans campaigned on addressing inflation and lowering the cost of living for millions of Americans.

Ironically, the first bill they are introducing repays the wealthy donors that got them their majority through dark money contributions by making it easier for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans to cheat on their taxes.

We all may have varying beliefs about taxes, but we as Americans know that nothing in this life is free and that in order for our Nation to be a beacon of freedom we must have a strong defense, public assistance programs to help those in need, an education system that prepares young minds to lead, retirement programs that provided for our elder and disabled, and a healthcare system that cares for all in need of healthcare.

Passage of the rule will pave the way for Republicans to continue their assault on a woman's bodily autonomy and impede on medical decisions that should remain between medical professionals and their patient.

Although the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act does not criminalize abortion nationwide, make no mistake, that is their end goal, and the passage of this bill will get them one step closer to their sick idea of stripping all women of their rights.

There are concerns that language in the House Rules Package would eliminate rules requiring spending offsets for bills that sell or transfer federal public lands and waters.

This will result in a loss of public access enjoyed by the 70 million American hunters and anglers that help support the $862 billion outdoor recreation economy in the United States. Additionally, giving away public assets with no return would be a loss for American taxpayers.

As a result, hunters and anglers are strongly opposed to this rule change, which would eliminate the necessity of spending offsets to sell or transfer public lands.

I urge all my colleagues to oppose this bill and see it for what it truly is:

an effort by Republicans to give tax breaks to the ultra-rich and the corporations who fund their campaigns, and

an effort to continue carrying out their distorted notion of America by decimating the programs set in place to help the Americans who depend on government assistance the most.

The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

section:

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 26, the so-called Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Despite what its supporters would have us believe, this legislation would do nothing to enhance protections or the quality of healthcare if an infant is born after an attempted abortion. What it would do, however, is directly interfere with a doctor's medical judgment and dictate a medical standard of care that may not be appropriate in all circumstances, which could, in fact, put infants' lives at greater risk.

Finally, by beginning this new Congress with a bill to restrict women's healthcare nationwide, House Republicans have made clear that they will not stop until they reach their ultimate goal, a nationwide ban on abortion.

It has always been the law that healthcare providers cannot deliberately harm newborn infants and that they must exercise reasonable care in their treatment of such infants. The bill's implication that providers who perform abortions routinely act in a callous or a criminal manner that would result in an infant's death, or that a provider who performs an abortion somehow cannot be trusted to take adequate measures to save a living baby's life, is insulting and untrue.

In opposing this bill, I do not oppose, in any way, proper medical treatment for newborn infants, whatever the circumstances of their birth, but determining the proper treatment is for medical professionals to decide, not politicians in Congress.

When I supported the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002, my reasoning, and the reasoning of my pro-choice colleagues, was simple: Killing an infant who is born alive, either by an act of omission or commission, is infanticide. It was, is, and always should be against the law, and we saw no harm in reaffirming that fact.

That law passed Congress with bipartisan support precisely because it was harmless, even if it was also useless since it did not change the preexisting law in any way because, after all, murder is murder in every State.

The bill specifically just reiterated existing law in florid language and did nothing to interfere with doctors' medical judgment or to cause needless harm.

Unfortunately, the bill before us today puts children's lives and health at risk. It requires doctors to immediately ensure transportation and admission of the infant to a hospital in all cases, with no regard as to whether doing so is actually in the best interest of the child's health and well-being.

This mandate effectively overrides the careful case-by-case exercise of professional medical judgment by healthcare providers and replaces it with a blanket rule enforceable with criminal penalties. It may be, after all, in a given case, that it is more beneficial to the infant's health to be treated on the spot and not rushed to a hospital immediately.

Such a ham-fisted approach fails to consider the fact that, in many cases, it may be safer and more conducive to the infant's health to care for the infant where it was born rather than transporting it many miles away to a hospital.

This bill assumes that Congress knows better, and it imposes a new obligation on providers that, rather than saving lives, puts infants at risk.

Perhaps, if this bill had gone through regular order, we could have avoided this unfortunate situation. There has never been a committee markup or a hearing on this bill, not in this Congress or in any previous Congress.

I would have welcomed the opportunity to hear from expert witnesses on best practices and standards of care for infants. Members could have offered amendments and perfected the bill to ensure that it achieves our common goal of providing the best, most medically appropriate care to infants and their mothers.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, that my colleagues rushed this bill to the floor when there is no evidence at all that doctors currently are failing to provide an appropriate level of care and when a chorus of provider groups oppose this bill.

Sadly, rather than protecting infants, my Republican colleagues are putting them at greater risk in the service of politics. Indeed, by bringing this bill straight to the floor as one of the first measures to be considered by the 118th Congress, Republicans and the most extreme elements of the anti-abortion movement have signaled their determination to enact a nationwide ban on abortion.

I cannot support H.R. 26 because it mandates a particular course of treatment, the immediate transport to a hospital, which may not be appropriate and may be medically dangerous in certain cases. In doing so, it abandons the practice of considering the best medical interest of infants and their mothers.

Republicans have made clear where they stand about a woman's right to control her body. Make no mistake: This bill is another step in their plan to criminalize abortion nationwide.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-conceived legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished minority leader of the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

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

Madam Speaker, Mr. Scalise and every other Republican who has spoken on this bill is simply wrong on the facts. It is illegal and always has been illegal in every State and then Federal law to kill an infant born alive. It is illegal and always has been illegal not to provide that infant with appropriate medical care.

Just to make sure that no one had any doubts of that, we passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act with bipartisan support in 2002.

The problem with this bill is not that it provides any new protections for infants. The problem with this bill is that it endangers some infants by stating that that infant must immediately be brought to the hospital where, depending on the circumstances, that may be the right thing to do for the health and survival of that infant or it may not.

That is the problem with this bill.

It directs and mandates a certain medical care which may not be appropriate, and which may even endanger the life of an infant in certain circumstances. That is why we oppose this bill. It is not because we don't think that babies born alive must be saved, but because we do think that babies born alive must be saved.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

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

I will end this debate by reiterating the point I made at the beginning: This legislation would do nothing to enhance protections or the quality of healthcare if an infant is born after an attempted abortion.

It has always been against the law to intentionally kill or harm a newborn infant, whatever the circumstances of its birth. It has always been against the law not to afford such an infant appropriate medical care. The bill does nothing new to protect infants.

The bill, however, is not harmless. Rather, if enacted, it could place the lives and health of newborn infants at risk. The bill directly interferes with a doctor's medical judgment and dictates a medical standard of care, namely, immediate transport to a hospital, that may not be appropriate in the particular circumstances.

That is why a broad coalition of healthcare provider groups, joined by a wide range of additional health, civil rights, and women's rights groups, strongly opposes this bill.

We should listen to these healthcare professionals. We should support keeping babies alive, which is what the Republicans say they want to do, but yet, they have this legislation that would endanger babies' lives by dictating a standard of care that may not be appropriate in certain situations. We should listen to these healthcare professionals.

This legislation is just another step in the Republicans' plan to criminalize abortion nationwide. The House must reject this seriously flawed bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.