me, but trips planned. the president has is one-year anniversary party in marijuana bill. -- party in mar-a-lago. all the plans are on hold. if they have not taken off by sunday, all bets are off. host: do think when it comes down to the wire congress will pass a 3-4 day continuing resolution? guest: i think that congress will pass something. it might be a clear cr. i think that is probably what they will do because no one wants to be responsible for shutting down the government. , thankolleen hanabusa you for your time. we will leave the conversation

there. the house is about to gavel in. live coverage here on c-span. ci pposes is exprsly ohibit by the u.s. house of presentatives.] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offeredy the guest chaplain,ab mara nathanabbmara nathan, le bh-el, san antonio, texas. the chaplain: holy one of blessing,oure the source of all. regardless of our faith's tradition, we recnize a force in the uverse calling each of us toe fulfill -- to fulfill our potential. we chlenge ourselve to compensate for our shortcomings and emphasize our tlents and energies for the greater good. wededicate ourselves each in our ownay to a life of service andeaning.

committed to the ideals of our great nation, we're ever worki towards the promi of wh is l yet to be. therefore, pray, tt you bestow the blessingsf foreght, coassion, and patience upon the womenand men of our committed to te ideals of our cs may they be united in working for the good of our nation and may tey recognize the spark of holiness in every human being. bless our leaders with strong minds a open hearts. ever ready to serve with integrity,urpose, and honor amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his pproval thereof. rsuant to clau 1 of rule, the journaltands approved. for what purposdoes the gentleman from pennsylvania sek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the urnal. the speaker: the qution is on agreeg to thepeaker's approval othe journal. those in fav will vote aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. t the journal stands aproved. for what puose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recogniton? mr. fzpatrick: i object to thvote on the grounds that a quorums not present and make a pnt of order a quum is not present.

the speaker: further proceedings on thiqueson are potponed. the be led by the gentleman from mr. brown. mr. brown: mr. brown. i pledge to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from texas, mr. castro, is recognized for one minute. mr. castro: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize our congressional prayer leader today, rabbi mara nathan, and thank her for being here. rap by nathan began her tenure at temple beth-el in san antonio on julyle, 2014, where she was the first woman to serve as senior rabbi of a major congregation in the state of texas. at temple beth-el, she's spent her time contributing to her congregation through community buildings, worship innovation,

and teaching torah to learners of all ages. prior to being ordained in 2000 by the he grow college jewish institute of religion in new york, she received a bachelor of arts degree in history and certificates in jewish studies and women studies from northwestern university in 1993. during her studies she was the recipient of the steinhart fellowship, an award to further education with teens and college-age students and received academic awards for hebrew, history, and talmudic studies. before the chair:ing to san antonio she served 20 years in new york from 1994 to 2014, playing an instrumental role in all aspects of congregational life. we're happy to have rabbi nathan, her husband larry, their children in the san antonio community. and thank you, rabbi, for your words of inspiration. i yield back. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five further

requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. i >> i riseoday to recognize deputy chief who died while responding to an accident. he earned valor in the line of duty recognitions during that time. he's also helped the community by implementing programs to teach high school students emergency care and improving the fire district's standard of care. it is because of the sacrifice of first responders like chief accord that we enjoy the lives we're able to lead. our first responders put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe and for that we can never say thank you enough. louisiana parish is better

because of chief accord and i ask you keep his family and his firehouse in your prayers as they grieve. thank u. madam chair. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. brown: madam speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. and if necessary to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. brown: madam speaker, enough is enough. congress has a huge list of urgent overdue bipartisan priorities for the american people. and we can't keep kicking the can down the road. the short-term funding bill congressional republicans passed yesterday ignores the pressing issues facing our nation. funding the children's health insurance program and community health centers. delivering needed resources to fight the deadly opioid epidemic. protecting our dreamers from deportation. providing disaster relief for americans ravaged by wildfires. these issues aren't going away.

musrk together to address them immediately. yet house republicans have passed the fourth short-term funding measure in four months. this month by month approach is reckless and dangerous for the entire nation. it hinders our military, medical research, and infrastructure investments. it hurts seniors who depend on social security and medicare. and veterans getting care at the v.a. we need to stop the gimmicks and this cycle of delay. this is no way to run the government. madam speaker, let's stop putting off for tomorrow the things we need to do today. let's get to work. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. yesterday i went to the capitol basement where a classified me, it that angered was frustrating, it was

disappointing, it was also greatly enlightening. the american people deserve, they must, they want to know what's in this document. release the memo. release the memo and all of the related materials sourced in the memo. mr. zeldin: release the file. there is no concern, there be, for compromising any good sources and methods. by releasing the memo, and releasing be, for the file, wha would reveal is the feds' reliance on bad sources and methods. the american public deserves the truth. we should not hide the truth from them. they have waited too long. do not full a wool over their eyes. show them the facts they deserve nothing less. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illle now seek

recognition? ms. schakowsky: i ask unanimous address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: address the hou for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: i rise honor the life and mourn the loss of a precious friend and mentor, paul booth. paul was a lifelong happy arrior for justice and a renowned progressive champion. for decades he was the top leader in his union, asfme, fighting every day for working women and men. from his youth as a student leader until the very day he died, he fought for piece and equality and opportunity, paul booth made things happen. he was a strategist and above all an organizer. with his life partner, heather, paul inspired and taught to us work smarter and be better. paul booth will be sorely missed by all those he touched

including my husband and me, we were cherished friends for decades. our hearts go out to heather hose s sons and all ose lives he inspired a that he touched. we're so sorry. our hearts are -- we're heartbroken. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fitzpatrick: madam speaker, i rise today to recognize north hampton township in my district in bucks county, pennsylvania, for being named the safest community in pennsylvania. hampton rose to the top of the list of 25 safest cities with over 39,000 residents with a score of 90.97, the top fifth percent identical in the entire nation. the rankings are run by safe home, a professional security

organization dedicated to making communities safer. this recognition will not have been possible without the dedicated work of the entire north hampton township police department and the leadership of the police chief. every day these men and women put their lives on the line to protect their family, friends, and their neighbors. quoting chief clark who said it best, it is not just us, it is working hand in hand with our residents, our administration, and our board of supervisors. our fire department, rescue squads, our school district. it's everyone working together that makes this a great place to live. well said, chief clark. we're so proud of the emergency services, governmental officials, and residents of north hampton township. job well-done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelamdy fro new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consento address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, as republicans demonstrate their inability to fund the federal government, 700,000 young

people are left with an uncertain future. these dreamers exemplify what is best about america. they have served in our military. they have built businesses and contributed to our community. this administration has waged an all out assault on these young people, placing them in jeopardy and so in fear they will be sent back to country they do not even know. now republicans in congress are turning their back on these oung people as well. we could have passed a fix to this problem as part of the government funding bill that could have been a bipartisan solution. a number that has been supported by the vast majority of the american people. 87% of americans say dreamers stay in allowed to the united states. yet president trump is holding these young people hostage for a stay in useless and offensive

wall. this is unconscionable. we have a moral obligation to act. congress needs to stay here and have an up or down vote on a clean dream act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. velazquez: that is our moral obligation. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? >> i ask to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as you just heard from the previous speaker and you read off in the press about a potential government shutdown, let me tell you how this works. mr. mooney: the house passes a bill then the senate considers a bill. in the senate you either vote on the bill with majority vote or the minority party may choose to filibusterle that bill. if the minority party chooses to filibuster the bill, which requires 60 votes for cloture, that shuts down that bill for passing. we passed 12 appropriation bills out of this chamber right here. they are sitting in the senate waiting to be taken up. one, the democrats need to drop their filibuster. i wish the majority party over there would put the bills on

the floor and make the country see the filibuster live for all to view. you might see that over the weekend, ladies and gentlemen. i hope the majority leader does that. but what would cause a lack of funding for the government is simply the minority party, the democrats, in the senate, abusing the filibuster and causing the government not to be funded. that's what's causing it. that's a fact. may have different opinions on other issues, but the fact of the matter is this is the way the process works. a filibuster means you can't even get a vote on the bill. that's being done by the democrat party in the senate. right now they have done it all year. it's dysfunctional. it needs to stop. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to recognize the remarkable accomplishment of the mcliman's high school football team located in my district. they capped off a 14-0 season

december 10, 2017, wh its second consecutive five double-a championship after defeating golden west by 42-12. by winning two state championships in consecutive years, they became the first team in the oakland athletic league to achieve this impressive fete. -- feet. the high school -- feat. the high school is in my district with a strong history of athletic excellence. nba legend bill russell and major league baseball hall of famer, frank robinson, have graced the halls of the high school. coach michael peters has carried forth the same tradition of excellence since 1992 and has continue usely -- continue usely work to make sure his athletes succeed on the field, most importantly succeed in the classroom. these young athletes represent the spirit, the resilience, and

passion of oakland. please join me in congratulating their historic championship win. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. . mr. lamalfa: i wanto thank the department of heth and human services under this ministration to do something that should have done something long ago. new office -- this new office will treat people fairly. it's part of a broader theme in america from all religions and walks of life have been persecuted for their views and for not conforming to the views of others. how is that in the name of tolerance? for example, i recently led an amicus brief on behalf of 144

representatives and senators for a supreme court case involving pregnancy clinics in california who under california law are being forced to violate their own faith and effectively advertise for abortions against their own will. this is wrong and it's evidence of the religious persecution in america today. religion being one of the founding cornerstones that formed this country by our founders. this new d.h.s. office is a positive sign for people of all faiths who are being bullied and are essentially being told their beliefs don't matter because they disagree with conservative viewpoint. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, we are 111 days in the current budget year and yet no closetory a budget than we were four months. ago we face a long to-do list

including funding our military, funding the children's health insurance program and community health centers, protecting dreamers, repealing the midcal device tax, supporting disaster relief and the list goes on. we simply can't continue kicking the can down down the road with irresponsible temporary fixes like the ones this house passed last night. mr. schneider: they hamper rather than help our military and other government agencies by forcing them to function in uncertainty, unable them to make key strategic investments. this is no way to run our government. three times in the past year i crossed the aisle to vote for these short-term extensions, but i've seen no willingness to work with democrats, no evidence of progress, and no reason to believe we won't be in the exact same position one month from now after yet another c.r. enough is enough. that's why last night i voted no. it's not too late. i urge my republican colleagues to reach across the aisle and

work with democrats to find a long-term funding solution that addresses our country's needs. i am committed and ready to work with my colleagues as long as it takes to achieve that responsible resolution, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, pursuant to 2--1 2-a of rule 1 of -- of rule 9, i seek recognition to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the house. the form of the resolution is follows -- resolution mpeaching donald john trump, president of the united states, of high misdemeanors. resolved, that donald john

trump, president of the united states, is unfit to be president, unfit to represent the american values of decency and morality, respectability and civility, honesty and propete, reputeability and integrity. is unfit to defend the ideals that have made america great. unfit to defend liberty and justice for all as expulled in the pledge of allegiance. is unfit to defend the american ideal of all persons being created equal as exalted in the declaration of independence. s unfit to ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general well fair and secure the blessings of liberty to

ourselves and our prosperity as laweded in the preamblto the constitution. is unfit to protect government of the people, by the people, for the people as elucidated in the gettysburg address. and is impeached for high misdemeanors. and that the following article of impeachment be exhibited to the senate. article of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives of the united states, in the name of itself and of the people of the united states against donald john trump, president of the united states. in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high misdemeanors committed as

resident, constituting harm to american society, to the manifest injury of the people of the united states. article 1, in his capacity as president of the united states, unmindful of the high duties of his high office, of the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and respect necessary for stability within the society of the united tates, donald john trump has with his bigoted statements done more than simply insult individuals and groups of americans. he has harmed the american society by attempting to convert his bigoted statements

into united states policy and associate -- and by associating the presidency and the people of the united states with bigotry on one or more of the following occasions. on january 27, 2017, donald john trump issued executive order 13769, providing for a partial shutdown of immigration from mainly muslim countries to fulfill a bigoted campaign promise that read as follows -- donald john trump, statement on preventing muslim immigration, new york, new york. december 7, 2015, donald j. trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states until our country's

representatives can figure out what's going on. thereby attempting to convert a bigoted campaign promise into united states policy associating the presidency and the people of the united states with bigot. thereby casting contempt upon muslims, inciting hate and hostility, and sewing discord among the people of the united states on the basis of religion. on july 26, 2017, donald john rump made a public statement substantially as follows -- after consulting with my generals and military experts, please be advised that the

united states government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the u.s. military. our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical osts and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. thereby attempting to convert his bigoted statement into united states policy, associating the presidency and the people of the united states with bigotry. thereby casting contempt on transgender individuals, inciting hate and hostility, and sewing discord among the people of the united states on

the basis of gender. on august 15, 2017, donald john trump made a widely published statement characterizing a group of anti-semites, bigots, racists, white nationalists, men who lux klans rallied in south carolina as very fine people. thereby associating the presidency and the people of the united states with bigotry. n october 7, 2017, hate groups returned to charlottesville, virginia, at the statue of robert e. lee, the confederate general chanting, "you will not replace us," after having

chanted in their august harlottesville rally that, "jews will not replace us." since this event on october 7, the president has made widely published statements about many issues, including the national football leae, but has not made one widely published statement condemning the hate groups for returning to the place where an innocent person lost her life at the hands of hate. on january 11, 2018, donald john trump held a meeting with a bipartisan group of congressional leaders that focused primarily on legislation that would provide

a statutory protected status for individuals brought to the united states without documentation. at this meeting, as has been widely published, donald john trump made references to people h-i-t- -- ds s-h-i--h- ombingeds -- t-h-o-l-e countries. or why we need people from haitians or african countries, proclaiming we should take them out. donald john trump then suggested that norwegians were better suited to be immigrants to this country. thereby casting contempt on

citizens and noncitizens who were welcomed here by previous presidents due to natural disaster and civil unrest. trying to thereby -- associating the presidency and the people of the united states with bigotry. inciting hate and hostility and sewing discord among the people of the united states on the basis of national origin. in all of this, the aforementioned donald john trump has, by his statements, brought the high office of president of the united states n contempt, ridicule, disgrace

and disrepute, has sown discord among the people of the united states, has demonstrated that he is unfit to be president and has betrayed his trust as president of the united states to the manifest injury of the people of the united states and has committed a high misdemeanor in office. therefore, donald john trump, by causing such harm to the ciety of the united states, is unfit to be president and warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office. the speaker pro tempore: under rule 9, resolution offered from the floor by a member other than the majority leader or the

minority leader as a question of privileges of the house has immediate precedent only at a time designated by the chair within two legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed. pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentleman from texas will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. that will be made at the time for designation onsideration.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 694, i call up the bill h.r. 4712, the born alive abortion survivors protection act, and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4712, a bill to amend title 18 united states code to hint a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 694, the bill is considere ad. the gentlewoman from alabama, mrs. roby, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, will ch control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from alabama, mrs. roby. mrs. roby: madam speaker, i ask

unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and their remarks include extraneous materials to h.r. 4712. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. madam speaker, good morning. the pro-life in washington today is so exciting. 45 years ago this month the supreme court of the united states ruled in roe v. wade to make abortion legal and available nationwide. while many abortion activists celebrate this anniversary, it represents a particularly somber occasion for those of us who advocate for life at all stages. every year since this ruling, the pro-life community has gathered in washington to march in peaceful protest. that's exactly what brought thousands of passionate individuals here today. i'd like to extend a very sincere thank you to each and every person who made this trip

today to participate in the march for life. for those individuals, their dedication to the pro-life movement is inspiring. and i and many of my colleagues stand with them. i'd especially like to of the all individuals from my home state of alabama who made the 12 to 13-hour trip. i'm proud to have of the individuals from my people like these alabamans and others here to represent our great state and our nation in this pro-life movement. i believe it is only fitting we take action today here in the house of representatives to defend the defenseless. as thousands of americans are here to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. i'm proud to stand here today as a co-sponr of the legislation that we're considering. h.r. 4712, the born alive abortion survivors protection act. i'd also like to thank my colleague from tennessee, marshall blackburn, for her leader -- masha blackburn, for her leadership on this

legislation. at this point i don't think it's a secret that i'm unapologetically pro-life. i believe our laws and policies should assign the utmost importance to every life at every stage. i've been proud to stand here on the house floor many times in defense of the unborn. but this time we aren't even talking about unborn children. we're here to talk about those who have already been born. the born alive abortion survivors protection act is pretty simple. it states that if a baby is born alive after a failed abortion, he or she must be given the same exact medical care that would be given to any other baby. i know we will continue to play politics about when life begins and argue about the point at which the laws should step in to protect it. while i understand that not everyone agrees with my strong pro-life stance, i cannot fathom how any person could be

opposed to legislation that protects babies who are so alive that you can look them in the eye. with that, madam speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. madam er: thank you, speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 4712, the so-called born alive abortion survivors protection act. despite what supporters would have us believe, this legislation would do nothing to enhance protections or enhance of care if an infant is born after an attempted abortion. what it would do, however, is directly interfere with the doctor's medical judgment and dictate a medical of care if st care -- standard of care that may not be appropriate in all circumstances which could put infants' lives at greater risk.

let me say at the outset of this debate very clearly. it has always been the law that health care 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 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 insalting 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 infant protection act in 2002, my reasoning and the reasoning of my pro-choice colleagues was simple, killing an infant who was 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 pre-existing law in any way. the bill specifically just reiterated existing law in language, and did nothing to interfere with doctors' medical judgment or did needless harm. the bill today puts children's lives health at risk. it requires doctors to transport the infant to a hospital in all cases. with no regard with whether doing so is in the best interest of the child's health and well-being. this overrides the case buy case exercise of professional medical judgment by health care providers. and replaces it with a blanket

rule enforceable with criminal penalties. such a hand fitzed approach fails to consider the fact in many ces in ma be safer and more conduciveo the infant's health to care for the infant where it was born rather than transporting it many miles away. but this bill assumes that congress knows better and that imposes a new obligation on providers that rather than saving lives could put infants at risk. i'm sure that such a result is not what the bill's supporters intend, but all too often this is what happens when members of congress try to dictate a physicians' exercise of professional medical judgment. perhaps if this bill had gone through regular order we could have avoided this unfortunate situation. but there has never been a committee markup or hearing on this bill. 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 allle that doctors currently are failing to provide an appropriate level of care and the chorus of provider groups oppose the bill. this is clearly an effort to have the vote coincide with the presence of many anti-choice demonstrators in washington. sadly, rather than protecting infants, my republican colleagues are putting them at greater risk in the service of politics. i cannot support h.r. 4712 because it mandates a particular course of treatment, immediate transport to a hospital, which may not be appropriate in every case and may a be medically dangero in certain cases. it abandons the practice of considering the best medical interest of infants and their mothers. i urge my colleagues to reject this ill-conceived legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from alabama is recognized. mrs. roby: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i'd like to recognize my colleague, vicky hartzler, the gentlelady from

missouri, she's recognized for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. hartzler: thank you, madam speaker. i have written remarks here but after what i just heard i've got to change what i was going to share. the idea that you could oppose this bill under the ruse that it helps children and mothers is absolutely preposterous. the reason that we need this bill is because, yes, we did pass legislation in 2002 saying that a baby, if they are born during an abortion procedure, deserves life, but the problem is, it is not being followed. you can go out in the hall and visit with some nurse who is have come here, who have experienced the traumatic trauma of witnessing a baby born and then being put in a plastic bag and suffocated to death. you can visit with the nurses that i have met that found a baby in a soiled closet that had -- was born alive and was put there to die. you can visit with a young mother named angole, who

a pectedly gave birth to baby boy in an abortion clinic, and once she saw that baby she changed her mind. she wantedt to le. her friendled the paramedics. but the clinic staff turned the dil team away denying lifesavi care for her baby. thlittle a baby boy baby died in the mother's arms as she rocked it and comforted it, showering it with love. the reason this bill is needed is because it puts penalties on those health care officials who refuse to provide medical care. refuse to follow the law that you state you support. and so if you truly support life, if you support these babies, if you support the mother, then put some teeth in this legislation and make sure it is followed. i urge you to support it and everyone here. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, i

yield -- now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from washington, ms. jayapal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. jayapal: thank you, madam speaker. is bill is yet another and unnecessary attack on women's and unnecessa attack on women's rights. namely a woman's actually protected right to an abortion. of course we support proper care for infants who are born. those of us who are mothers know that we want what is best for our children. but that is not what this bill is about. this so-called born alive bill seeks to further politicize abortion and criminalize providers. it is clearly unnecessary because doctors are already bound by guidelines that require them to provide emergency care when facing life threatening circumstances. abortion care pviders, including pnned parenthood, are highly skilled and highly profsion. they do not deserve to be criminalized. this is pure political theater.

instead of ensuring that women have access to reproductive health care, the republican majority is attempting to interfere with patients' relationships with their doctors, providers' ability to practice medicine, and our actually protected right to make choices about our own bodies. let us be clear, the impact of this will fall disproportionately on low-income and rural women and women of color. let's also be clear about this, roe v. wade gave women the right to access an abortion. and seven in 10 americans support that right across rural and urban america. and the vast majority on both sides of the aisle see through these cynical attempts to strip women's access to health care from the 20 week and six-week abortion bans to these attempts to cut funding to planned parenthood. our focus, madam speaker, should be on ensuring that every person in america has access to comprehensive health care. rather than harmful bills that

strip health care or the republican obsession with undermining the affordable care act, which the american people a already said allow -- loud no to. we have so much real work to do. passing a real budget, passing a lean dream act. fighting climate change. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jayapal: let's do that real work instead. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama is recognized. mrs. roby: aid now like to yield four -- i'd now like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from virginia, the chairman othe judiciary committee committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for four minutes. mr. goodlatte: i want to thank the gentlewoman from judiciary committee. today thousands are rallying in the nation's capital to be part of the march of life and to celebrate hope and compassion for those that do not have a voice and to save the lives of the unborn and yet many

millions more have viewed videos of planned parenthood who performed 40% of abortions each year. those videos recorded undercover sadly portray a much darger side of our society. they showed -- danger side of our society. they showed exchange of money for the aborted body parts of babies and instances during the course of an attempted abortion a baby is born intact and then shipped to a lab for the use of its body parts. congress must move immediately to protect any children born alive during the course of a failed abortion. the bill before us today provides that in the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive, any health care practitioner must exercise the same degree of professional care to preserve the life of the child as he or she would render to any other child born

alive at the same gestational ag the bill also provides the ild must be immediately, immediately transported and admitted to a hospital. if a baby born alive is left to die, the penalty can be up to five years in jail. if the child is cut open for its body parts or some other overt act is taken, the punishment is that for fird-degree murder which must include life -- first-degree murder which must include life in prison or the death penalty. the house judiciary committee heard direct testimony by two grown women who as babies survived attempted abortions. the mother of one of them was advised by planned parenthood to have an abortion but as she testified, instead of dying i was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in los angeles. her medical records state clearly that she was born alive during an abortion. 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. i was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy, which was caused by a lack of oxygen to my brain while surviving the abortion. i was never supposed to hold my head up or walk. i do. and cerebral palsy is a great gift to me. just think of that for a moment. ms. jesen says cerebral palsy is a gift to her because it came with a gift of life. she forgave her mother long ago and day for that gift of life which she enjoys to its fulst to this day. ms. jesen presented a picture of the hearing showing the results of the sort of abortions she survived. i urge my colleagues to support the born-alive abortion survivors protect act so others who survive failed abortions can have the same chance to be

as thankful as ms. jesen and support all efforts to save the unborn as well. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. i now er: mr. speaker, yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, dr. berra. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bera: thank you, mr. speaker. over 26 years ago i graduated from medical school and took an oath, an oath that hundreds of thousands of doctors have taken over the years, to do good, to do no harm, and to help our patients make the best health care decisions that affect their own circumstances. but this bill, mr. speaker, would criminalize the practice of medicine and questions doctors' judgments. this bill intimidates doctors to practice safe, evidence-based health care and those without medical training

can make choices for patients and dictate medical practice. why are we having politicians fill in for doctors? get the politicians out othe delivery room and let doctors re for their patients. there's disagreement that every baby born should receive all the medical care and treatment to survive. we're all in agreement. that's not what this bill is about. this bill is an attempt to undermine a woman's access to safe and legal reproductive health services. and it's a blatant attempt to intimidate doctors from practicing the medicine that is in the best interest of their patients. that's why i, along with my colleague and fellow physician, dr. ruiz, attempted to offer an amendment that upholds existing law that health care providers must exercise the same skill, care and diligence as they would any other child born at the same gestational age.

it would have stopped members of congress, most of whom have no medical training -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. nadler: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bera: it would have stopped members of congress, most of whom have no medical training, from interfering how doctors practice medicine, because these decisions should be between a doctor and their patients. i have always said that a woman's health care decision should not be between -- should be between her and her doctor and that's -- that being a woman is not a pre-existing condition. as one of the few doctors in this chamber i say, listen to your doctor. i urgeou to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. roby: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank mrs. roby for being a leader in this area. mr. speaker, today i rise in support of h.r. 4712, the

born-alive abortion survivors protection act. this is commonsense legislation to strengthen under penalty of law the protection of infants who enter the world alive after attempted abortions. we agree with my colleague on the other side that an infant born alive has protection under the law and is in fact a person. this was established under the belief infants protection act signed into law by president bush in 2002 after it was passed by voice vote in this chamber and by unanimous consent in the senate. we need this bill because in practice babies fighting for their lives after an attempted abortion are being denied treatment at the hands of so-called physicians. this law affirms and protects the survivors of abortions and ensures that, just like every other baby that is born, these

persons become hospital patients and receive the same medical care as any other child born in the united states. not left in the very hands of those who sought to terminate their life. this, mr. speaker, is an unfortunately necessary bill to ensure health care professionals comply with the born-alive infants protection act, and i urge my colleagues to vote to protect our nation's most vulnerable children and to affirm life by voting to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. speaker, i now yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from tennessee, the ranking democrat on the constitution subcommittee, mr. cohen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you. i appreciate the time. this moment in time and this previously respected and hallowed hall is being

diminished in the same manner in which the white house has recently been diminished. president trump recently had a meeting and he referred to the roosevelt room where he had a meeting with cabinet meetings with other senators as the studio. as if this is all theater, theater of the absurd. now, the president has a recent in entertainment, and he may be trying to get a lifetime oscar for the most farcecal display or appearance of an executive lepedimane of mel brooks fame. we should not make this as a studio for a show being presented for the right to life people who are marching on this anniversary of roe v. wade. regular violates

order which we are supposed to be implementing. there was no hearing in the subcommittee. there was no hearing in the committee. there have been no amendments allowed. this is irregular. this is not regular order. this is a theater, a show put on, produced by trent franks who left this house under disgrace and continued by this republican administration while this government possibly could go into shutdown. yet, we are acting like this is not the situation. we have a bill that will go nowhere in the senate, is unnecessary, violates the principles of federalism because most of the principles herein are reserved to the states and are unnecessary and would be an impediment to women's health, in many cases making members of congress doctors and superimposing their magical medical knowledge over

that of physicians who are attending the pregnant woman and the child. it's already against the law to murder a child, and if the child is born it's a child. to not use the duty of care a doctor has would be murder and that's state law but it's already the law and to require it to be taken immediately to a hospital could endanger the child. it should be a decision by the doctor. this is the theater of the absurd. we should not be in this house making it into a studio like president trump has made the white house into a studio. we should be going through regular order and considering bills that have a chance to protect the american people and women. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the president of the united states. the gentlelady from alabama is recognized. mrs. roby: i now like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. black: mr. speaker, the born-alive abortion survivor protection act requires doctors and nurses to present during an abortion to properly care for a child who survives it. it's an oath we take to save lives. imagine that, mr. speaker, that a doctor must give the same care to a baby born alive after a botched abortion that they would give to a baby born any other way at the same gestational age. we're talking about saving living, breathing human beings. human beings that were formed in the image of the creator with inherent dignity. and i am appalled when my friends from the other side of the aisle say it would endanger a child to take them to a hospital, to actually call for emergency care where all of the services are provided in an ambulance and taken to a hospital where they would have the best chance to survive. as a grandmother and a nurse,

it is utterly aalli tt we have to pass legislation to save babies that are left to die. whether or not we agree that life begins at conception. and i truly hope that one day we will. this bill is merciful. it is humane. it is just. abortion is brutal for both the mother and the child. and providing care for babies who survive this horrific practice should never be a question. no one should be against this. we all should gather together and say that if the health care professional does not help to save that life of that baby that's born by a botched abortion that they should be held criminally liable just as they would for any other life that they refused to save. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from new york is

recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the distinguished the gentlelady from texas, a member of the judiciary committee, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the ranking member. i thank him for his leadership. he's served on this subcommittee, and i thank mr. cohen for his very eloquent explanation. let me say that i stand with these women. jenny r., kathy l., women who have experienced -- lindsey -- women who have experienced the tragedy of losing a child, wanting a child and wanting the protecti of roe v. wade. i sta with these women. i rise tod to, again, ask the question why we divide over the wonderment of birth. i am reminded of h.r. 4712, passed in 2002, the born-alive infants protection act that was widely supported.

now we come just in the eve of failed administration in its first year and to stand as if we are doing something for those who are coming who i have great respect for for their position of pro-life but it doesn't mean we must undermine the constitution, add mandatory minimums, make up needs where there are no needs and that's what this particular bill does. this amendment so h.r. 4712 is intruding into a process between the mother, the doctor, the family and her god. there is no evidence of law breaking that's been uncovered that necessitates congressional involvement. abortion is a proven safe, legal, 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 five 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 on the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: the reason we should be dealing with this shutdown is because law enforcement, madam speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: our clinics have no money. mr. nadler: i yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. . 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're about to shut down the government, we have a c.r., there's no funding for police officers. there's no funding for the desperate who have been impacted by hurricane harvey, maria, and irma. no funding whatsoever. i salute the senate and senate democrats for standing firm for

those people. there are no moneys for federally qualified health clinics. there are no moneys for -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: are you not doing your job. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. ms. jackson lee: on a bill that is not necessary. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. he gentleman reserves. mrs. roby: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, who also is a long time serving as the chairman of the pro-life caucus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, in 2018, doctors today routinely diagnose and treat illnesses and disability suffered by the littlest patients, unborn babies, as well as newborns. they enhance both the child's health and longevity. abortionts, on the other hand, take a far different approach. they dismember a chemically poison children to death for profit. for decades babies have

survived later term abortions. a "philadelphia enquirer" story 37 years ago called baby survival the dreaded complication. in other words, it's a complication that a child survives. i got involved in the pro-life movement when i read an a.p. story of a child that survived a later term abortion. and the abortion rights movement then, it was 1972, before roe vs. wade, in new york, where apoe plep particular about it because the baby survived. that should have been a reason for rejoicing. dr. willard case of c.d.c. was breathtakingly candid when he said, live births are little known because organized medicine from fear of public clamor and legal action treats them more as an embarrassment to be hushed up rather than a problem to be solved. it's like turning yourself into the i.r.s., he said. what's there to gain? the tendency is not to report because there are only negative consequences.

an undercover investigator asked an abortionist, what due do, what's your protocol when a child is born alive? the key is you need to may atext to who is in the room, right -- attention to who is in the room, right? when we're talking about cover-up, ensuring that the people in the abortion clinic all gag themselves and not speak to the truth of what has happened. a baby has been killed after birth. the legislation today requires a significant penalty. that health care practitioners present at the time that the child survives the abortion exercise the same degree of professional skill, and care and diligence to preserve the life of the child and get them to a hospital. you this humane legislation. i urge my colleagues to support it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from alabama reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, smars. i now yield -- madam speaker. i now yield a minute to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: i rise in opposition to h.r. 4712, the born alive abortion survivor protection act. of course if a baby is born alive, everything must be done to protect that life. no one disagree was that. and perhaps more importantly it is already the law. to suggest otherwise is just wrong. don't be fooled. this bill is yet another effort to erode women's right to obtain safe legal abortions and a cynical attempt to appease those who have come to d.c. to advocate for the reversal of roe v. wade. h.r. 4712 would insert the opinion of politicians into medical practice and the individual rights of women to make their own decisions. this is not what women want, what doctors were trained to do. and i personally find offensive the fact that there is a suggestion that democrats are not for saving the lifes-i lives of born children -- lives of born children. of course we're. this is not a necessary piece of legislation.

it's already on the books. and i d back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentlelady from alabama is recognized. mrs. roby: madam speaker, i just like to point out that it is not currently federal law or the law in all 50 states that a baby born alive after a failed abortion receive medical treatment. instead of being left on the floor to die. that's why we're here today. to require under federal law nationwide that a baby born alive after a failed abortion receives medical care and isn't left on the floor or in a trash can to die. now i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank to you my colleague. mr. speaker. many of us in this body disagree on the issue of abortion, we should all be able to agree that once a child is born he or she deserves protection. if a doctor attempts to perform

an abortion, sometimes a baby actually escapes. an emergence from the womb still living if this real-life scenario isn't terrible enough, sometimes these babies who are breathing the same air as you and i are, are left to die and their lives are terminated right there in the medical if acy. mr. speaker, these abortions -- these surviving children from this terrible procedure, they need our protection. mr. budd: back in 2002, president bush signed a bill that said in an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, that infant is a legal person for all purposes under our laws. however, this law didn't create additional protections for these surviving children. that's why i'm urging my colleagues to support mrs. blackburn's bill that would add additional protections. whether it's making sure an infant is immediately taken to a hospital, mandating these doctors do everything they can to save their life, these

survivors -- mrs. roby: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. budd: last year we voted on a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks. mr. speaker, while i supported that bill, many of my colleagues chose not to. but i urge them to at least commonsense bill to protect the lives of abortion survivors. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from alabama reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: commonsense bill to protect the lives of abortion madam speaker, i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from oregon, ms. bonamici. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. miss bonna moachy: thank you, mr. nadler, for yielding. i rise to oppose this legislation. of course infants born alive deserve health care as dr. bera just explained. doctors are already obligated to provide that. this bill threatens to send health care providers to jail and women to back alleys. instead of debating this bill, we should be working to reduce the rates of unintended course, which, of

reduces the number of abortions. history shows that when abortions are restricted or banned, they do not go away. dangerous and unsafe. look at countries that restrict abortion. every year thousands of women procedures. fe dangerous and yet here we're debating a bill that will make criminals out of doctors and a bill that will drive more women to hazardous self-help procedures. methods. there are effective ways to reduce unintended pregnancies and improve maternal health, which is what we should be doing. instead, this bill disregards the professional judgment of trained medical professionals. it imposes extreme new standards of care. and that's why provider organizations like the american congress of gynecologists strongly oppose this legislation. mr. speaker, women in this country will continue rejecting archaic and counterproductive kohl policies like this. just as my colleagues should reject this bill.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentlelady from alabama is recognized. mrs. roby: madam speaker, i'd now like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from south dakota, miss glome. the speaker pro tempore: jealt is recognized for two minutes. mrs. noem: i rise today in support of the born alive abortion survivors protect act. the whole experience of first time parent can be overwhelming. i remember feeling this incredible sense of joy, of course. but there is always so many questions, too. how are we going to provide for thisab what kind of person will ty become? what if something goes wrong? there is no doubt that a lot of things can go wrong in a pregnancy. we find comfort in the fact that there is a whole team of health care professionals there who will do everything that they can to care for that baby or save that baby if necessary. what if they didn't? what if they stepped back and they refused to deliver care to your child that would be unacceptable. when a baby is born alive after a failed abortion, that same health care profession almay

not deliver the lifesaving care that that baby deserves. melissa from sioux city, iowa, was born alive after an abortion attempt. by god's grace and work of an incredible nurse, she survived. there were demands made to leave her there to die in the hospital room that day. she says that ultimately a nurse rushed her off to the nicu because in the nurse's words, melissa just kept gasping for breath. that nurse wasn't going to leave her there to die. madam speaker, every life has dignity. and every life deserves respect. we ultimately need to ban abortion and protect life from the moment of conception. but until that's done, we must fight to protect every single precious little life that we can. the born alive abortion survivors act will do that and successful in that mission. with that i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from alabama reserves. gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, i now yield to the distinguished gentlelady from california,

former member of the judiciary committee, ms. chu. the speaker pro tempore: how long? mr. nadler: one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. chu: i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 4712. this bill would allow the federal government to override a doctor's medical judgment without exception. it is moat vitevathed by politics not sigh -- motivated by politics not science. first this bill reiterates current law which already protects all newborns from medical negligence. second, the criminal penalties in this bill go above and beyond current law and are clearly intended to intimidate doctors. this isn't sound medical practice. this is politics. impeding a doctor's medical judgment. and what's more, this intimidation could endanger newborns. this bill would require all newborn infants to be immediately transferred to the nearest hospital but not all hospitals have neonatal units, or it might be harmful to move the infant immediately.

clearly the intent is not to protect newborns but to stir outrage. this bill is a solution in search of a problem. it's unnecessary, redundant, and part after broader attack on women's health and reproductive rights from this chamber anti-trump administration. i strongly urge my -- and the trump administration. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentlelady from alabama is recognized. mrs. roby: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the gentlelady for yielding. madam speaker, i rise today in support of the born alive abortion survivors protection act which i proudly co-sponsored. this week we're reminded of our nation's most vulnerable people as we remember the 1973 roe v. wade supreme court decision. mr. mitchell: unfortunately, abortion has resulted in the deliberate death of too many babies. including babies born alive. we must protect these children.

today, we do protect these some born through abotched abortion attempt by this bill. the c.d.c. reported that during a 1-year period over 370 babies died after being born alive during a termination of pregnancy. -- ntentional negligent neglect of care for these lives is unconscionable. we must respect mothers and their children by ensuring medical care is given to babies born alive -- neglect of after a failed abortion attempt. how hard is that? any doctor caring for these newborns must be held criminally accountable. this legislation does that. it is our duty to protect all lives and i took an oath to do just that. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from alabama reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, i now yield one minute to the distinguished gentlelady from california, ms. lee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you. i want to thank our ranking member for yielding and his tremendous leadership on so many issues. i stand in strong opposition to this bill which is really just another attempt to criminalize abortion and limit access to the full range of reproductive health care for women. this so-called born alive abortion survivors protection act is another cynical attack on a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. it's unnecsary and simply pitches a false narrative to the american people to intimidate women and providers. madam speaker, in 2002, congress passed a bill with broad bipartisan support that acknowledges the rights of any child born alive in this country in terms any infant should receive appropriate medical care. that is a given and everyone believes that. . this legislation before us is a

step too far. it interferes with medical practice by enforcing extreme new standards of care through criminal and civil penalties on providers. no woman should have a politician -- may i have another -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. nadler: i yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady may resume. ms. lee: thank you for yielding. in conclusion, i'd like to say no woman should have a politician interfering in her personal health decisions. they should be made between her and her medical provider, period. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this very cynical and sinister bill and get out of the business of interfering in women's health. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. and the gentlelady from alabama is recognized. mrs. roby: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to now recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, also a member of the judiciary committee, for two minutes. the speaker o tempore: t gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. farentho: thank you,

madam speaker. i'm here today to support h.r. protection act, as have many of my colleagues. i just find it interesting to hear from the party that brought us the affordable care act about the government interfering with health care decisions. but that wasn't really what i wanted to talk about today. i wanted to talk about the horrendous practice of sitting there and watching a child that was born alive die and not providing them care. the born-alive survivors protection act of 2002 says any born alive at any developmental stage are human beings. there is no law right now that criminalizes the act of an boorgs to deny the care of the abies that survive boorgses -- abortions. which is why i support this legislation. it not only requires appropriate care for children that survives abortion, it

establishes strong criminal penalties for those that violate the law, including the zing those who hurts baby. you're intentionally letting a child die and you are not -- you could help. there's not -- it's not that -- you're a doctor. you're trained. as a strong supporter of life, it's important we hold those that kill innocent children accountable for what they do and i believe this law will do that. i encourage my colleagues to please join me in supporting this important legislation, to protect the lives of our newborn babies. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from alabama reserves. and the gentleman from new york is recognized . mr. nadler: madam speaker, i reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from alabama is recognized. mrs. roby: i'd now like to -- excuse me -- i'd now like to yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rothfus: madam speaker, i rise in support of the

born-alive survivors protection act. this should not be a controversial vote. this bill should pass unanimously. if a little girl is born alive she should be protected. everyone hearing my voice, we are at a point of just having been born and all of us had the right to live, whether we were wanted or not. i wonder what the pro-life democrats of yesterday were thinking yesterday? eunice shriver, of course, the great great governor casey of pennsylvania. their rhetoric reminds of what he said 25 years ago. it's a bitter irony that abortion has found a home within the democratic party which claims to be a champion of the poor. despite the fact that the interest of the poor are in direct conflict with the interests and the agenda of the abortion industry. this is a simple bill. please vote for humanity. please vote for this bill. and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from alabama reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, i now yield oneinute to the gentladyrom new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: i thank the ranking member for his extraordinary leadership and for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition. in the past year, the usual republican stream of anti-woman, anti-choice policies has turned into a flood. today's vial bill is based on lies and designed to intimidates doctors from providing abortions. i'd like to remind my colleagues that for 45 years, the supreme court has upheld a woman's constitutional right to

access a legal abortion. and that current law already protects, already protects infants as well it should. but republicans would rather play politics with women's lives than rely on science and the law. this bill seeks to criminalize legal medical services and put extreme anti-choice ideology between a woman and her doctor. in what other circumstance, my colleagues, would we ever tolerate denying, delaying or interfering -- mr. nadler: i yield 30 seconds. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman. want to make this pot to my colleagues. in what other circumstance, in what other circumstance would e ever, ever tolerate denying, delaying, and interfering with legitimate and legal medical

care? this must stop. protect a woman from this political charade. allow doctors to take care of their patients, and please, vote no on this unfair, vial bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. and the gentlelady from alabama is recognized. mrs. roby: thank you, madam speaker. i had you a now like to yield one minute to the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. aderholt: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in strong support of this legislation, the born-alive survivors protection act. i know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be arguing that -- and have been arguing there's no reason for this bill. they will already have laws on the books to protect children who are born alive. i was back here in 2002, when that law, the belief infants protection of 2002 was enacted.

how much, it did not criminalize actions of abortionists who deny care to babies who survive abortions. not only abortion providers not only -- do not provide care for the children when they're born alive, some are actively known to prevent their lives from proceeding. this legislation not only requires appropriate care to be given to any child who survives an attempted abortion but also establishes strong criminal penalties for violating such requirement. i believe it is important to note that the mother of the child is in no way being prosecuted under this legislation and women are not being targeted. but i do -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. aderholt: on this 45th anniversary of roe vs. wade, i ask you to support this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i reserve. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from alabama is recognized.

mrs. roby: i now recognize the gentleman from indiana, mr. banks, for -- i yield him one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. banks: thank you for yielding. madam speaker, anybody who believes in human rights should support giving care to every infant born alive, even after an abortion attempt. this bill ensures that any child who is born as a result of an attempted abortion, a child who is literally outside of the mother's womb is cared for just like any other newborn baby. regardless of our differences on the issue of life, i think all of us can come together to protect the lives of children who are already born. we've seen horrible cases where the lives of chdren were ended immediately after being born or even neglected a left to die as in kermit gosnell's clinic. today i urge my colleagues to do the right thing and protect our nation's children from violence by voting for this important piece of legislation.

with that, i thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from alabama reserves, and the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, i now yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. mceachin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mceachin: i thank mr. nadler, and i thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 4712. this act is a continuation of the house republicans' decade-long attempt to rob women of their constitutional right to safe, legal abortion care. the bill we are considering today, however, takes these attacks on women a step further. mother 4712 seeks to supersede doctors -- h.r. 4712 seeks to supersede doctors' judgments, giving potentially harmful new standards of care. this will result in harsh criminal penalties. this bill seeks to intimidate

doctors. if passed it will discourage them from providing care and make it harder for patients to receive the help they need. that is why this is opposed by respected medical organizations such as the american congress of obstetricians and gynecologists, the american society of reproductive medicine, the national association of nurse practitioners and women's health, and many others. it's simple. health care decisions should be between a woman and her doctor. mr. nadler: madam speaker, i yield the gentman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro mpore: mr. eachin: i ank the gentleman. madam speaker, it's simple. health care decisions should be between a woman and her doctor. politicians are not medical experts and have no place interfering with the provision compassion and evidence-based care. madam speaker, i am an attorney and you can trust me with a lot of things but a medical

decision is not one of them. as we mark the 45th decision of roe v. wade, we should be advancing policies for women and their families rather than restricting the health care they need and deserve. i ask my colleagues to oppose h.r. 4712. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. and the gentlelady from alabama is recognized. mrs. roby: madam speaker, i now yield one minute to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. norman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. norman: thank you, madam speaker. as a father of four, and now 16 grandchildren, i strongly support the sanctity of human life and i believe that life begins at conception. madam speaker, a person is a person, no matter how small. whether a baby is still in the womb, if a child is born prematurely or even if a child is born alive following an attempted abortion, they still have a life that is worth protecting. therefore, i am a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 4712, the born-alive survivors protection

act, sponsored by my good friend, representative marsha blackburn. this bill will do so much to protect our most vulnerable, and i will continue to support legislation and advocate for those who cannot advocate for themselves. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from alabam reserves. and the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, i now yield two minutes to the ms. lady from florida, frankel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. frankel: when i was 15 years old, and that was in the day before abortion was legal, i found a friend bleeding to death because of a back alley abortion. those were the days that when a woman needed abortion she would

rely on coat hangers and poison and that's what this bill's going to take us back, to those deadly days, because its aim is to intimidate, intimidate doctors and threaten their own freedom if they dare to use their own medical judgment with the consent of a patient to perform what is now a legal abortion. and so i stand and i urge my colleagues to oppose this deadly legislation. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. and the gentlelady from alabama is recognized. mrs. roby: madam speaker, it's my honor now to recognize the lead sponsor of this important bill, the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, who has been such a fierce advocate for the unborn, i now yield to her three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker.

and i thank the gentlelady from alabama for her leadership on this issue. and to my friends across the aisle, i want to say i would be hopeful that you all would take a few minutes and actually read this legislation. it's not a lengthy bill. it doesn't take that long to read. . quite precisely it does a few simple things. that need to be done. that need to be done to build that this body chose to pass and put on the books. now, the reason that we chose to do this is because of what we have learned since 2002. if you go in and look at the kermit gosnell trial and that house of horrors, and if you

take the time to listen to some of this testimony, there was a health care worker that said, during the years of working in that facility that there could have been as many as 100 babies, 100 babies that survived a botched abortion. what happened, they lost their life. they lost their life. this bill is about protecting it's not about roe v. wade. it is all about protecting women and babies. it gives that mother who has that abortion and it's botched and that baby survives, it gives her that civil right of action that she ought to have. it does set that standard that you've got to have medical care provided to these precious,

precious babies that survive that. you do that immediately. they deserve that standard of care. d it says if a health care professional does not make the choice to provide that care, that they are going to face those criminal penalties. so, yes, the bill is there to protect women and these babies. i just had a great conversation with a young lady that survived and abortion. she's an adult now. she stands for life. i encourage this body to support the bill and to pass the born alive abortion survivors act. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from alabama reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. thank you.

madam speaker, the other side ready to close? then i'll close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr nadler:adam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. thank you. the speakeprtempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you. madam speaker, i end this debate by reiterating what i said at the beginning. this legislation would do nothing to enhance protections or the quality of health care if an infant is born after an attempted abortion. the 2002 law reaffirmed that it has always been and is now against the law to intentionally kill or harm a newborn infant whatever the of his birth. the other side has referred several times to the case of dr. gosnell. dr. gosnell is now in jail of h under a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, plus 30 years. convicted of first degree without this bill.

because without this bill. because it's already against the law not to give proper care or god, forbid, to murder a alive.rn the law already requires the highest standard of care for all newborns. this bill does nothing new to protect infants in any respect. the bill, however, is not harmless. rather by demanding the immediate transportation of the new-born to a hospital, regardless of the medical or other circumstances, it would place the lives and health of some newborn infants at risk. a. the law already requires the highest standard the bill directly interferes with the doctor's medical judgment and dictates a particular cause of action -- course of action that may be harmful to the newborn in the particular circumstances. that is why a coalition of 13 health care provider groups jo by a coalition of 25 additional healt civ rights, and women's rights groups strongly opposes this bill. as the providers note, the bill

wrongly, quote, injects politicians into the patient-physician relationship. the provider's training and judgment and undermines the ability to determine the best course of action with their patients. close quote. let me add one other thing. this bill does not interfere in any way with the rights secured by the supreme court decision in roe v. wade. the provider's training and judgment and undermines that decision guarantees the an t of a woman to choose abortion if she wishes. it does not, nor does any other law, or any other provision, negate the command of the law that everyone respects that any newborn child, whatever the circumstances of his birth, must be cared for in the best medical way.

of course deliberately killing it would be first degree murder. this bill does not change that. but this bill does do harm by presenting risk to certain newborns by demanding their immediate transport to the hospital when it may be harmful to their health to do so. we should listen to the health care professionals. we should respect their judgment and the house must respect this seriously flawed bill. i medical way. of course yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from alabama is recognized. mrs. roby: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. roby: like so many of my colleagues, i support this measure. but it feels really strange standing here today in defense of living, breathing children. to have to make a case that a baby that survives an abortion and is born into this world should be treated just like a baby born any other way. unfortunately, we must. there's currently no law mandating that a baby born alive after a failed abortion

receive medical treatment instead of being left to die. so that's why we're here. to require under federal law nationwide that a baby born alive after an abortion attempt receives the same care that any other baby would receive. so flime, my question, madam speaker, to -- so finally, my questions, madam speaker, to those who would oppose the measure is this, how is the life of one baby any different or less valuable than the life of another baby? how does anyone justify that? i know that as members of congress part of our job is to debate with each other about issue facing our nation. i take that job responsibly -- responsibility very seriously. i just don't believe this particular issue is up for debate. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 4712. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady yields back. all time for debate has expire pursuant thouse resolution 694, the previous queion is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend title 18 united states code to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion, or attempted abortion. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: for that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause of rule 20,

further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. green, seek recognition? mr. green: madam speaker, i seek recognition for a question of the privileges of the house and offer the resolution evioly noticed. speathe r pro tempe: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: resolved, that donald john trump, president of the united states, is unfit to be president, unfit to represent the american values of decency and morality, respectability, and civility, honesty, and propriety, and integrity is unfit to defend the ideals that have made america great, unfit to defend

liberty and justice for all as extoled in the pledge of allegiance. is unfit to defend the american ideal of all americans being created equal as exalted in the declaration of independence. domestic o ensure tranquility from the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity as lauded domestic in the preamble united states constitution. is unfit to protect government of the people, by the people, for the people as stated in the gettysburg address and impeached for high misdemeanors and that the following article of impeachment be exhibitted to the senate. article impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives of the united states in the name of itself and of the people of the united states. against donald john trump, president of the united states. and maintenance and support of against him for

high misdemeanors committed as constituting harm to american society, to the manifest injury of the people of the against hi high misdemeanors committed as states. article , in his capacity as president of the united states, under mindful of the high duties of his high office of the dignity and proprieties thereof and of the harmony and respect necessary for stability within the society of united st,onal d john trump has with his bigoted statements done more than insult individuals and groups of americans, he has harmed the american society by attempting to convert his bigoted statements into united states policy. and by associating the presidency and the people of the united states with bigotry on one or more of the following occasions. on january 27, 2017, donald john trump issued executive order 13769, providing for a personal shut down of immigration from mainly muslim countries to fulfill a big outed campaign promise that read as follows. dond j. trum's statement on preventing muslim i am gration

from new york, new york. he's calling for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states until our country's representatives can figure out what's going on. thereby attempting to convert a bigoted campaign promise into united states policy. associating the presidency and the people of the united states with bigotry, thereby casting ontempt upon muslims and citing hate and hostility and sewing discord among the people of the united states on the basis of religion. on july 26, 2017, donald john trump made a public statement substantially as follows. after consulting with my generals and military experts please be advised that the united states government will not accept or allow transgender individuals toerve in any capacity i the u.s. military. our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. thereby attempting to convert

his bigoted statement into united states policy. associating the presidency and the people of the united states thereby casting contempt on transgender individuals and citing state and hostility and thereby casti discord among the people of the united states on the basis of gender. on august 15, 2017, donald john trump made a wildly publicized statement characterizing a group of exentsem mites, bigots, and clue clucks clans man who rallied in char lotsville, virginia, as very fine people. associating the presidency and eople of the united states with bigotry. on october 27, 2017, hate groups returned to charlottesville, virginia, at the statue of robert e. lee, the confederate general, chanting you will not replace us. after having chanted in their august charlottesville rally jew also not with bigotry. replace us. since this event on october 7, the president has made wildly published statements about many issues including the national football league but has not

made one widely published statement condemning the hate the s for returning to place where an innocent person lost her life at the hands of hate. on january 11, 2018, donald john trump held a meeting with bipartisan group of congssiol leaders that focused primarily on legiation that would provide a statutory protected status for individuals brought to the united states without documentation. at this meeting as has been wildly published, donald john trump made references to people s-h-i-t-h-o-l-e countries. he also questioned why we need more haitians or people from african countries proclaiming that we should take them out. donald john trump then suggested that norwegians were better suited to be immigrants to this country. thereby casting contempt on citizens and noncitizens who were welcomed here by previous presidents due to natural disaster and civil unrest. thereby attempting to convert

his bigoted statements into united states policy. associating the presidency and the people of the united states with bigotry inciting hate and hostility and sewing discord mock the people of the united states on the basis of national originalin -- origin. in all of this the aforementioned donald j. trump has by his statements brought the high office of the president of the united states in contempt, ridicule, disgrace, and disrepute, sown discord among the people of the united states. demonstrated he is unfit to be president and betrayed his trust as president of the united states to the manifest injury of the people of the united states and has commit add high misdemeanor in office. therefore donald john trump by causing such harm to the society of the united states is unfit to be president and warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office. . the speaker pro tempore: the resolution qualifies. for what purpose does the gentleman from california, the majority leader, mccarthy, seek

recognition? mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i move to lay the resolution on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. green: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to lay the resolution on the table will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of r. 4712, and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the

journal. this is a -- if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 355, the nays are 66. three answering present. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on passage of h.r. 4712, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk: h.r. 4712, a bill to eemed title 18 united states code to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child in an agorgs or attempted abortion. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the

bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 241 and the nays are 183. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order.

the house will be in order. take your conversations off the floor, please. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: madam speaker, i believe we ought to stay here and do our work. and i believe we ought to vote to do so. and therefore, i will vote no -- the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? mr. hoyer: i have a motion and the motion is the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion that the house adjourn. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opion of the chair, the noes have it. mrhoyer: madam speaker, on that, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 1. the nays are 418.

with one answering present. the motion is not adopted. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, the unfinished question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. and the journal stands approved. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute

speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> permission to address the ouse for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. and the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. the hou i not in order. please take your conversations off the house floor. he house will be in order.

please remove all conversations from the house floor. he house will come to order. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: thank you, madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: is there an objection? the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker. ladies and gentlemen, the house, we are confronting a very serious situation as all of us know.

that is we have not reached agreement tound government between now and september 30 of this year. it is now some one-third of the year, fiscal year 2018 that has gone. at some point in time the majority leader is not available right now, therefore i'm not asking him to yield because he has something important that he is doing now. but at some point in time, madam speaker, i'm hoping that the majority leader will come before us and we could have a colloquy on what we intend to do during the course of this day, perhaps tomorrow, perhaps sunday, perhaps monday, perhaps tuesday in order to get the business of the country done. i'm urging my members to be available on very short notice so that they can complete the work of funding our government for fiscal year 2018.

i hope that all other members will be available to do so as well. that is our responsibility. we have not yet met that responsibility and therefore, i want to give notice to my members that we need to be here. the senate has not acted. we do not know what they will do. we need to be available for their action. i know the majority leader suggested that it was ok to leave and go home. i want to make it clear that that is not my view. we have not completed our work. the american public expects us to do that. and i would hope we remain available to complete the work of funding the government between now and fiscal year 2018 which ends on september 30. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition?

mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. he house will be in order. please stake your conversations off the floor. he house will be in order. the house will be in order. take your conversations off the

floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: pad a.m. speaker, i rise today to celebrate the sanctity of human life and redouble my commitment to protect the unborn. today more than 100,000 pro-lifers are in washington, d.c., for the 45th annual march for life, this year's theme is love save lives. it surely does, thanks to the pro-life movement, abortion rates are the lowest since 2013. today's march is one of the best events of the year and i'm pleased, always pleased, to see so many young people for life. and to see so many individuals standing for what they believe in gives me great hope for the future of the pro-life movement. we must be a voice for the voiceless and build a culture that respects mothers and their

children because we all know that love sambs lives. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order.n order. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for ne minute. mr. payne: madam speaker, last month 12 people died in a raging inferno that tore through an apartment building in the bronx. i rise today to honor the life of army private first class mmanuel m emp nta, a

28-year-old man who repeatedly ran into that building to rescue his neighbors. this soldier lived by the army's respect, yalty, duty, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage. he lived and died by these values in selfless service to his community. madam speaker, his life exemplifies the best of our nation. his tragic death teaches us that every life has value. every life has meaning and every life is worth protecting. madam speaker, private first class emmanuel menta was not only a brave and courageous soldier but immigrant from the african nation of ghana. keep the gates of liberty open

to immigrants like him. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: jop gentlelady from new york seek recognition? ms. tenney: permission to address the house for one minute. today thousands from across the country will come to our nation's capital for the 45th annual march for life, the largest pro-life rally in the world. it is in response to the ruling in roe versus wade that altered the course of our american culture. on january 22, 1973, u.s. supreme court decided to roll back restrictions on abortions in the u.s. since that ruling over 58 million human lives have been lost to abortion nationwide. while a number of states have enacted regulations preventing late-term abortions, the united states is one of seven countries which allow abortions after 20 weeks from the date of

gestation. earlier this year, the house passed the pain-capable pain child act to end this practice. one of the most important struggles we face as legislators is to protect the sanctity of life and defend future generations. as a mother, it's among my top priorities to advance pro-life and pro-women policies in congress and promote a culture that respects the most precious gift of all, the gift of life. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? >> permission to address the ouse for one minute. mr. gabbard: hawaii has long enjoyed a special relationship with japan and has been shaping r history and collective story. i recogni three special leaders, stephanie, mildred and tom, three members of the japanese cultural society of

maui who have been dedicating the heritage in the county. these three leaders have gone above and beyond working to strengthen ties between hawaii and japan. they create sister city relationships, organize cross cultural and educational opportunities, cultivate the stories of the first japanese immigrants to hawaii and so much more. in recognition of their many contributions and legacies, they have been selected for awards from the japanese cultural society of maui. thank you for your service to the people of hawaii. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, bruised and battered christian mccaul's wife reporting that her husband was engaging in domestic abuse. on january 17, detective michael dotey and three other deputies responded to the call for help. after beating up his wife, he took off running away from the police and there was a three-hour man munt hunt. ashe law officers closed in, shots ran o. sergeants were all shot during the chase. we thank the good lord they are expected to make a full recovery. but detective michael doty was shot and killed. this is his photograph. he was another member of the thin blue line leaving the world too soon. he was 37, was a 12-year veteran

of the york county sheriff's department in south carolina. he and his twin brother enlisted in the force at the same time. he dedicated protecting and serving and worked in the drug enforcement unit as a member of the s.w.a.t. team. as his body was transported to the medical center, fellow officers lined the street in tribute to him. he was an officer of every agency would be proud to have. each and every day we are debateful to have officers like michael. the shooter was captured and will face justice. american peace officers root out evil and go after those who would do us harm. they are a rare breed who give their lives for the rest of us. and for that, we are grateful. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition?

ms. jackson lee: permissto adess the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: let me be very clear to my colleagues and the american people why there is a major debate in the other body. this is not a shutdown campaign. but what we need to understand is this is not a shutdown for illegal immigration. i'm offended by that terminology. the deemers is status and status taken away by the president. and what we are trying to do isening sure that individuals here in the united states who are in the united states military, who are teaching, committed to this nation have dignity. those friends of mine on the other side of the aisle, their relatives may have come undocumented, so therefore this is not about illegal immigration but about dignity and respect for people here in the united states. it is about my constituents that

are suffering from hurricane harvey, with no heat and no homes that are rehabilitated because we don't have disaster supplemental funding. it is about health clinics who will be shut down because we have no funding in the c.r., zero for federally qualified health clinics where babies go and get care. the department of education, teachers and our law enforcement that we have such respect for. this shutdown is not a campaign but a high calling to save this nation. i stand with them. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the ntman from georgia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the immediate benefits that h.r. 1, the tax cuts and jobs act, has already delivered for american families. mr. carter: soon ar -- after it was signed into law, a number of large companies had already announced large bonuses for

their employees, crediting the tax cuts and jobs act. for example, american airlines, at&t, jetblue, nationwide and southwest airlines all announced $1,000 bonuses for their hardworking employees. other companies that announced bonuses included aflac, wells fargo and suntrust, and i expect more to join this list. with an administration in congress that supports american businesses, we are not only seeing numbers of high consumer confidence and low employment, but we are watching the direct benefits that our policies are having on american families. i look forward to seeing how our tax cuts and jobs act will continue to benefit americans throughout 2018. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i would ask unanimous consent for one minute . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the cause of any government shutdown now will be the same as in the past.

republican intransigence. if they continue to insist upon an entirely partisan bill that excludesreamers, they should not expect democratic votes. i want t government to remain open for everyone, including our dreamers. mr. doggett: while republicans firmly control all levers of government, they can't keep it operating. they will make history, celebrating the first anniversary of donald trump's incompetence by shutting down the government that they totally control themselves. instead of staying here to work toward a bipartisan solution, they're moving to shut down the house first. it's the height of irresponsibility. it shows the depths of mismanagement that has failed to produce a simple one-year resolution to continue the operations of our government. we must speak out about the wrong that is being committed here, defend our dreamers,

defend the continuation of our government, and a more responsible approach in this new year. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize school choice week. and talk about the importance of choice for parents when deciding where to send their kids. mr. rokita: for millions of families, their local public school simply cannot provide the education that their shield needs. for instance, recovery schools create a safe environment for students who are struggling with addiction to drugs and alcohol. as chairmaof the subcommtee on early childhood and secondary education, i accompanied secretary devos last september when she visited the hope academy, a recovery school located in naacp. there i heard the story of jeremy, who like many kids wanted to fit in. one day jeremy reconnected with an old friend who offered him marijuana. before long he was using and selling eastern harder drugs. eventually he was blacking out

and was arrested. he could not find the help he needed in his local school and thankfully he and his parents found and enrolled in hope akdmy. because of hope acaddying -- academy. because of hope academy, jeremy got cleaned and enrolled in seminary and met his wife. one year ago they welcomed their first child. it is because of these stories and so many other, mr. speaker, that i fully support the right of parents to find the school that works best for them and their kids. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. lawrence: mr. speaker, we're close to a government shutdown. the republicans' top priority, however, is taking away a woman's right to choose. the abortion survivors bill is nothing but an insensitive, insulting and unconstitutional attack against a woman's right to make her own health care

decisions. no matter how sneaky the republicans have been in drafting this bill, it is plain and simple, an abortion ban. it criminalized doctors and intrudes into the doctor-patient relationship. so poll -- dr.-patient relationship. so -- doctor-patient relationships. so politicians are intruding into a woman's health instead of her making her choice with her doctor. this bill is part of the republicans' agenda to take health care away from women. on the eevepb of the women's march, we -- eve of the women's march, we say again, enough is enough. because this bill will intimidate, close down, re-- close down reproductive health clinics across the country, leaving women who truly need help with no choices at all. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to recognize a pillar of

journalistic integrity in our democracy. the redding eagle. a newspaper in my district, in burks county, pennsylvania. this month the paper celebrates its 150th anniversary. on january 28, 1868, the redding eagle published its first daily paper and is now one of the oldest family-owned newspapers in our country. today the paper operates its headquarters in downtown redding and serves as a valuable resource for news to many of my constituents. congratulations to the redding eagle and its staff on this exciting milestone and thank you for providing community news, great local content, and national news. and providing transparency and accountability of government at all levels for the betterment of our democracy. mr. costelloin spite of all the competing sources of information and evolving technology of today, e reddg eagle remains the greater burks region's go-to source for reliable, local news and information. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. green: to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is

recognized for one minute. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to thank the many persons around the country who have supported the cause of impeachment. i rise to thank the many members of the house. today 66 voted to advance the cause of impeachment. previously 58 voted to advance the cause. i rise to thank all who have been supportive and who are advancing the cause to protect democracy, to protect the republic. and to make sure that what we have is never eliminated from the face of the earth and that is the greatest country on the face of the earth. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today is a day

where tens of thousands of people come to washington, d.c., to march for the sanctity of life. for a real purpose of speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves. each year we see just an unbelievable number of people coming to not only proclaim what a pro-life position is, but to come out in unison, to make sure that we once again return to our roots of protecting life and knowing that every life is precious. sadly much of the mainstream media will not be covering this today. but in this house, on this day, let us know that indeed we are still one nation under god and willing to protect life. mr. meadows: and with, that mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there any other requests for one-minute speeches? the chair will recognize members for special order speeches

without project to the possible resumption of legislative business.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, of january -- the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. king: thank you, mr.

speaker. it's my honor to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the united states house of representatives. and to carry on some of the discussion that's taking place around this city and around this country today. on march for life day. it would take you back 45 years ago, on january 22, 1973. when the case of roe v. wade and d.o.e. v. bolten came before our -- doe v. bolten came before our united states supreme court. they manufactured a legal quote out of the -- to the decision that resulted in abortion on-demand in this country. to say abortions soared up as many as six million a year. in some of those years in the 1970's. america wasn't ready for such a decision. and we didn't understand in 1973 the magnitude of the decision

the supreme court had made. we knew that it was going to open up abortion. we suspected it would be abortion on-demand. we did not expect that 45 years later we would be here in this city, still marching, marching for life, and marching to defend the lives of the innocent unborn and praying and most, if not every single church in america, to defend innocent unborn human life. some of the questions that have come before us in that period of time, as two generations of americans have grown up with the guilt of abortion, with the shadow of it hanging over our heads, two generations of americans have grown up having to answer this question. is human life sacred? is it the value? is it the measure that we put up when we evaluate all things twow? -- we do? our founding fathers understood that. when they laid out the original

founding document of the declaration of independence. and they wrote that we have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. now, it's no coincidence that life is first in that list, mr. speaker. our founding fathers understood that they were prioritized rights, that the right to life is paramount and the right to life is sacred. and that -- but that liberty comes from god. he confers his god-given liberty on us. and we have to handle it responsibly. and behind that came pursuit of happiness. now, i'll take it from the bottom up, mr. speaker. pursuit of happiness was understood differently by our founders than i think we understand it today it. seems to me that if you -- today. it seems to me that if you go into a high school classroom that's been studying our founding documents and our constitution and ask them, what does pursuit of happiness mean,

they might say, well, a good tailgate party, or a fun time with your friends. or any one of a number of other things that they do for recreation. but truthfully, mr. speaker, that's not how our founding fathers looked at that pursuit of happiness. they didn't even call it the rich things that we draw from our families exclusively. but they understood psu of happiness ashe term is understoodn greek, which is the foundation for that term, amonia. a word, eud and that is the breadth of the pursuit of happiness described and understood properly as this. it's becoming the whole human being. the whole person. developing yourself physically with the god-given bodies that we have, with exercise and nutrition and develop our skill sets with the gifts that we have, that are physical skills. and it includes also the intellectual component where we develop our minds as far as we

can, educate ourselves and fill that god-given brain up with all of the information that's relevant and useful, that's the second component. the third component is they expected this eudamonia to become a complete human being, a complete human being spiritly, intellectually and physically. that was the package of eudamonia, pursuit of happiness. even that couldn't trump an individual liberty to live free and be free and have rights to property and a number of those components so if our effort to pursue happiness can't trample on someone else's god-given liberty, we understand that. you can't take away someone's property because it makes you happy. neither then can a pursuit of

liberty be allowed to justify the taking of a human life because life is the highest priority. d higher to prioritize life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. and i would remind you mr. speaker, when you want to know how we measure, the meter invited by a french man is to be that 39 point something inches and they have a meter stick so they can have a finite measure -- they keep it in a controlled atmosphere so it doesn't expand or contract and most precise measurement. that's the basis for distance measuring. that's the basis for distance measuring. that platinum measure stick is the meter that they measure

everything against. well, i will take you to former governor of pennsylvania, now passed away and father of senator bob casey, senator bob case combri senior. and he said human life -- cannot be measured. it is the measure itself against which all other things are weighed. the meter stick is the measur itself o distance. but human life is the measure of all of our values, human life is of ed, it is finite and life. we don't punish people differently when they commit murder against someone who is 101 years old. somebody who has a century of life ahead of them, we don't say their life is worth more.

human life is sacred. and it is the measure itself against which all other things are weighed. once we understand that human life is sacred, there is only one other question to ask and that is at what moment does life begin. and we can look through this whole period of human development and we can make arguments about viability and trimesters and ability to breathe or live outside the womb and those things are always vague. can never nail it down to anything precise because even the personhood -- exruse the pain-capable legislation that we passed out of this house a couple of months ago, that's why we call it bans abortion after 20 weeks. that baby can feel pain at 20 weeks. we reject aborting a peab that

can feel pain. we don know if they can feel pa prior to that or not. it's a relatively vague moment that is consensus conclusion of ob-gyn doctors perhaps. but life itself cannot be measured and neither can we take that life and say well, we might not have. i have stood in a high school or middle school gym and talk to the youth whose ears and minds are open and i say if someone walked by the door of this gym and looked away from you and poked a gun in the door and pulled the trigger, did he kill somebody? and they looked at each other and said, i don't know. i said neither does he. but if there is someone laying dead in the bleachers, we know what happened. is he guilty of murder if he poked a gun in the door and he

pulled the trigger and somebody died? yes. so neither can we take a chance with human life and say it isn't a life prior to 20 weeks or it isn't a life prior to viability or until the trimester. so what we have done in this congress, we have brought in a number of pieces of legislation to try to put an end to this killing because we know and believe the pro-life community, all the pro-l community is convinced that life begins at that moment of conception. and we have to protect that life from that moment. anyone who has picked up a little baby especially if it is your own and awed at the miracle that was created by god's image to be nurtured to learn, to laugh, to worship, to have children of his or her own, understands that miracle and

prow precious it is to us. there are 500,000 couples in america that are waiting to adopt. and yet, we have watched 60 million babies have been aborted since 1973 in the last 45 years. 60 million babies weighing on the conscience of america, a sin committed by the government of our country that's been people complicit in this in just a little bit ago, we had the vote on the born alive bill on the floor that enhances the penalty, if an abortionist isn't successful on the first try, what they do is put that baby in a cold room and close the door and let that baby die in that cold room. there are other more ghastly methods that have been done as well. we will protect that baby that

survived the abortion. if you tie to end the life of this baby through abortion and fail, we are going to punish you if you need a second try. i don't thin it's arly enough. i think it's a start, but not nearly enough and actually, we need to be accelerating our pace and incrementalism and not taking our foot off the throttle. 45 years, two generations, 60 million babies and i'm glad we have passed legislation that protects a born alive baby from being killed by the abortionist. i'm glad we did that today but not see it as a premiere piece of legislation that is going to end one abortion. instead it night end some of the killing post-abortion. says something about our dwns ever life but doesn't say enough about our defense of life. through the time i have been in this pro-life movement in iowa

and in this congress, two decades more all together, i have gone going from trying to get legislation passed that required if a young mother was seeking an abortion, a minor mother, that she needed to have parental notification. that's all we could get when i started on this in 1996. and even then they named that parent as, well, she could notify a mom or a dad, a stepmom stepdad, a grand parent, an aunt or uncler sister or brother, that's how planned parenthood to define this parent that would be notified that this child mother was going to get an abortion. still not parental consent in my state. it is parental notification with this long list of what a parent is. a father, mother, a legal

guardian, those are ok, then andparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, i said you left out the family cat, family dog. maybe you could seal up an envelope and open up the archives and that would be the notice. they did everything to restrict anything that might protect an innocent unborn baby. that's what it was like for me in 1996 in my state. through that time, we have marched through this march of incrementalism. god bless henry hyde from where i stand, time after time, he stood up and defended life. and the hyde amendment, along with mexico city policy, over the effect of these years, these many years along the way has saved somewhere in the neighborhood of two million

lives. that sounds like a big number. two million lives and makes me feel good about henry hyde and i recall going to his funal and saying good-bye. if anyone who stood here and talked at the podium that's in heaven, that's henry hyde. the number one pro-life activist, effective worker here and former chairman of the house judiciary committee and used the tools of his job and his character and his faith to save roughly two million lives. i tried to figure out how many others did we save with the incrementalism that we had. and i was involved in the effort and tip my hat to steve chabot who was the chairman of the constitution committee. and we had the partial birth abortion ban and that was passed off this congress and written into law, but they litigated it

to the supreme court and the supreme court turned it down in a decision said you can't ban it because that procedure is written too vaguely within the law so the physician put that in quotes, the physician can't determine what is lawful and what isn't. and on top of that, we had to determine that a partial birth abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. we went back to work and rewrote that legislation to conform with the supreme court's no decision. and we precisely defined the ghastly act of partial birth abortion. in law, we held multiple hearings and through the course of that, we established congressional findings that a partial birth abortion was never medley necessary to save the life of a mother. we answered both of the supreme court's objections and that went back out again where it was litigated before the three

circuits and i was part of that. and i sat through one of those cases in lincoln nebraska and came to hear the case here in the united states supreme court as well and there we prevailed. i don't know how many lives we saved with the ban on the partial birth abortion. at least we put another principle in place and stuck at two million babies saved over the course of 45 years. i look at some of the other legislation we passed out of the house but not the senate and the senate democrats are blocking piece after piece of legislation, but a couple of months ago, we passed the legislation over to the senate that we call it pain-capable, 20-week abortion ban and that legislation is the legislation i mentioned a few minutes ago that we've determined that a baby can feel pain. we have evidence of them struggling to get away from the surgeon's tools. and we have the testimony of

abortionists that tell us how a baby struggles and exhibits pain. nd many have seen surgery that was -- being conducted on a seven month old baby and the incision that went into the womb and the baby reached outside and held the finger of the surgeon. that picture will be in my mind forever. we can't think that a baby that can grasp the baby of a surgeon two months he is born is not a human being. of course they are. so we in this house banned abortion after 20 weeks after the definition that they are capable of feeling pain. that's a step in the right direction. and pretty big chunk of incrementalism as well that goes further than anything that has come off the floor of this house so far. we also have legislation waiting here that has pieces of

incrementalism. but the born alive legislation that passed this morning is incrementalism and small incrementalism that doesn't stop a single abortion but does put a statement down on the value of that baby. then there's legislation here that is legislation that prohibits sex selected abortion. because we are seeing that now with ultrasound, you can determine at an early stage whether it's a boy or it's a girl. and we have people that believe well, i think i'll abort the girl because i want my first child to be a boy. how do you do that? how do you that if you believe that human life is sacred, how can you take the life of a little baby and said i don't want this child to be the siing because it's a girl instead of a boy. we know what it has done in china, one-child policy in china

which they have lifted to some degree and family after family will abort because they want a name. carry on the gill copper was one of the people that fought down in the asian subcontinent in the second world war and he was stationed in india and there at the river that goes through new delhi, india, he would go down and wait under that bridge especially towards evening and he would just stand in the water, say up to here and he would listen and watch and listen for the splash. and when he heard the splash, he knew what brought that about. the splash was many, many times a little girl baby that was being thrown off the bridge into the river because they didn't

want a little girl. . and gill copper would swim out into the dirty river and get that baby and swim back to shore with that baby and dry that baby off, get that baby breathing, and carry that baby down to the orphanage and start that baby's life there. he saved dozens and dozens of little girl babies by poin himself in that river in india as a warrior defending our freedom and the -- in the second world war. and he became a pro-life activist. he already was. he came back to america a pro-life activist. and i want to do all we can to support his sacrifice and his memory. and henry hyde's and joe pitt's and chris smith's. those are the names of people who have led on this issue. all of them deserve a special place and all of our head -- in all of our heads and hearts for the work that they have done. but we're at a place now where the pieces of legislation that come through this house of

representatives -- that have come through this house of representatives and are poised to come through this house and be sent to the senate comes down to this. we have the bill that prohibits sex-selected abortion. and let's see, we have no-sex selected abortion and pain-capable legislation that's already passed. so -- and then chris smith has legislation that prohibits abortion on the dismemberment. and to describe this, mr. speaker, is also ghoulish and ghastly. and that is the process of the dismemberment abortion where the surgeon reaches in with specially made foreaccepts and grips a part of a -- forceps and grips a part of a baby and pulls. we had a doctor describe this before the judiciary committee. and pull with strong force, pull hard and come out with an arm or a or a part of a

torso and arrange those pieces in a stainless steel pan to see if he got all the pieces of the baby that he was tearing apart. chris smith's legislation stops that ghastly process. it doesn't end abortion. but it ends the ghastly process of dismemberment abortion. and i support that legislation. in fact, i have signed on to every piece of pro-life legislation that's come through this house of representatives. unless i just missed one somewhere. i believe it's every single one. but as i watched this incrementalism take place, i've always looked for when do the stars align themselves right? how do we get to this place where we do what we know is true and right and just? when will it be aligned right? and the alignment, we've known this for -- we've known this for 45 years. we can save these lives, those who we aborted in the future, we can save them.

if we have a pro-life majority in the house of representatives that's willing to take action. and if we have a pro-life majority in the united states senate that can figure out how to get past the 60-vote filibuster rule. and if we have a president that will sign the legislation and if we have a supreme court that will uphold that legislation. four windows, mr. speaker. four windows we need to have open. and i almost have to be open -- they have to be open in sequence and they have to be on at the right time. sooday we have a proife majority in the house of representatives ready to move, if we can get it to the floor. any reasonable piece of pro-life legislation that's consistent with the philosophy that i've articulated here in the last half hour. the house is ready. the senate has a pro-life majority. they don't have yet a way to get past that 60-vote threshold of the filibuster. except all mitch mcconnell needs

to do is go out there and make a motion to amebled the rule -- to amend the rule. and by suspending or deleting the filibuster rule. and that can pass by a simple majority in the united states senate. so all he needs is 51 votes. and i'll bet you mike pence would fly back from the middle east to cast that 51st vote if it meant opening up the door to save these lives and put an end to the discretion of aborting babies because they happen to be inconvenient or for other purposes. so, the house is ready. the senate has a pro-life majority. they've got to get past the filibuster. the president will sign legislation to save lives. and he's giving a speech maybe about now, talking about the value of innocent, unborn human life. we've never had such a pro-life president. we've never had, and i say this twice, we've never, never had such a pro-life vice president, mike pence, who sat next to me on my elbow on the judiciary

committee for i believe it was 10 years. i understand his convictions and know what he'll be saying to the president. i understand the president's convictions. we need to get legislation to the president's desk. what a tragedy, if we failed to move when we had the chance to move, what a tragedy if we weren't bold when when he had the opportunity to be bold. what a tragedy if we're stuck in the rut of incrementalism and this little dinky war of attrition that goes on between factions here within the house and within the senate, when we know what is the true right and just thing to do. but i've described how we have to be precise in the way we draft legislation that prohibits practices and prohibits abortion, along with other things. d we have to determine the rationale for our decisions here in the house and in the senate. and so i drafted legislation a year and a half ago that's called the heart beat protection

act. the heart beat protection act is h.r. 490. and it does this. it directs that if an abortionist is planning to commit an abortion, he must first check for a heart beat. if a heart beat can be detected, the baby is protected. that's the center of the legislation. it's only a few pages. it's not complex. we stripped it down so it was clean and everybody could understand it. and we define the check for the heart beat to be within the parameters of modern medicine. we can determine a heart beat, we know the heart will beat as early as 18 days. but it can be determined with confidence at weeks. so this is the 20-week bill is the pain-capable. this heart beat bill can be thought of in say roughly six weeks from conception. but our definition is the heart beat, not any time frame. that heart beat is precise. you can say then to the supreme court, we're not going end to the lives of these babies if

their heart is beating. we can determine whether the heart is beating or not 100% of the time that a baby's heart is beating, you have a live baby. and so we know if we stop thabeeting heart, we've ended the life of a baby. it's really clear and simple. and it doesn't take a rhodes scholer to figure that ourkts even at the supreme court level -- that out, even at the supreme court level. and it's within our hearts and i look across the countryside and the miles and miles, thousands of miles that i've driven over the last 45 years, and each year i see more and more of the billboards up, many of them put up by the knights of columbus that say, abortion stops a beating heart. or we all start small. they have gotten into our heads and into our conscience and into the culture of america. and when we see those billboards, we know what that says. it says, defend these little innocents. they might be the ones that produce the miracles going forward. every one of them is a miracle.

every one of them created in god's image. but we know that abortion stops a beeth heart. and we've all heard that rhythm of the ultrasound, we've all heard that sound of a beating heart. if the rulesidn't prohit it, i would take out my iphone and play this into the microphone because i've got one of those glorious things that's really close to me in my iphone right now, the beating of that little heart. 158 beats per minute. a healthy, healthy little child. and i've had them sent to me by constituents. they want me to listen. and they'll show me the ultrasound. and i have a district representative who framed the first ultrasound for his first born. and that little guy now, that frame has been in his office for all these years, that little guy now's name is joseph dean anderson. and he's 9 years old. and he's my godson. and his picture is -- his first picture is of his ultrasound. it's still framed and cherished by his parents and he is

cherished by me. these lives are utterly precious. they are the future of our country. we're america with -- today we have 102 million americans who are of working age, simply not in the work force. we're hearing debates here and in the senate going on this week and next week and many weeks thereafter about how we don't have a work force in america to do the work, so we have to go to foreign countries and bring people here, that bring with them a different culture, which, if they embrace ours, is fine. they'll assimilate to americanism. but we've got a large segmingt of america -- segment of america that is coaching them not to do that. to stick with the old ways rather than our ways. and that's -- there's a coequence to that. that's for anothercussion, another time, mr. speaker. bu i'll submit this. 60 million babies aborted since roe v. wade in 1973. roughly half of them were girls. and i went back through this

decade by decade and did the math to calculate how many babies would those 30 million girls that would have grown by now, many of them into women, how many babies would they have had? and by my measure, and the back to the -- back of the envelope only, but it's all we really need to understand the concept, another 60 million. we're not only missing 60 million babies in this country that were aborted since roe v. wade, we're missing another 60 million babies that were not born because their mothers were aborted. and now that's 120 million americans are missing. and they weigh on our conscience. that's 1/3 of our population. 320 million americans. so i can say to a school auditorium, to two girls, two boys or a boy and a girl, you two look at each other. they'll look at each other. and i'll say, do you know what's

missing? your classmate. your friend. would be sitting between you now. if it had not been for abortion. for every two we have, there's another one that would be -- every two americans we have, there's another one that would be sitting in betweenhat would have needed a pr es aho a ball gve a maybe a dance contest costume. all the little things that come for little boys and girls, all the joy, all the laughter. can you imagine shutting down 1/3 of the laughter in a country? or can you think about what america would be like if we were a country that we just stopped having babies? i mean, it's dialed down even worse in other countries. but that's where the joy and the laughter comes from. without babies there is no joy. without babies there is no laughter. it slowly silences itself as the years go by. if we had no more babies born in america, that means the 1 years

old is where we get the giggles and the laughs from. they laugh and giggle for a few more years and by the time they get into their 20's that would diminishes down. they don't have children to love. so their joy is going to be less. and as they get older, the hope would be gone because what would you be preparing for except your own death? but we live for the next generation. and i want that next generation, all of them, to be born. i want them to live, to love, to learn, to laugh, to play, to work, to be parents, to have children of their own. to raise those siblings. broker the disagreements that come ahong with that. to develop them -- along with that. to develop themselves and feel how full you are when you're a person that's completely gifted by the blessings of children and grandchildren. but that'see snuffed out by short-sightedness because of the permissability of the supreme court decision in 1973, roe v.

wade and doe v. bolten. and we're here in this town today marching. marching from the mall to the supreme court building, for the -- i guess it would be technically the 44th time. and what did we accomplish? some things. we supported henry hyde. the hyde amendment, mexico city policy has saved about two million lives. we banned partial birth abortion. we've passed a bill off the house of representatives that bans abortion after 20 weeks. when we believed that they are -- and they are pain-capable of suffering that grueling pain of an abortion. we've done. that but we sit here with the heart beat bill -- we've done that. but we sit here with the heart beat bill. it is the strongest, best supported pro-life bill at this stage of it that is before the united states house of representatives ever. even pain-capable came into the announcement that there would be a floor vote on it with about

151 or 153 signatures on it. the heart beat bill that requires the abortionist to check for a beating heart and if a heart beat can be detect, the baby is protected, has today 170 co-sponsors on it. it has another good long list that say, i'm not ready to sign on, but you put it on the floor and i'll vote for it. we can pass that bill off the house of representatives and send it over to the senate and if there are those that think, well, we don't want to let the heart beat bill get ahead of the pain-capable bill, i don't know why we wouldn't do that. i think that's a better policy, actually, and anybody that wants to save lives ought to be force that, but if that's their decision, fine, the heart beat bill can push the pain-capable bill out onto the floor of the senate and there can be a debate and vote on pain-capable, 209-week bill in the senate. . they don't very pro-life legislation moving through the senate but blocked up because they have a filibuster rule and

preoccupied but if all this united states congress can do on march for life day is bring a bill post-abortion born alive, save those babies. i'm glad we did it. we should have done the heartbeat bill here today. and the circumstances are this. the whip team for the heartbeat bill deserves a lot of credit. faith for action deserves a lot of credit. our former whip and majority leader, tom delay in texas has been working on this case for a long time, for a good year. he has been strategizing on that and pulling votes together on it. and his greatest regret as the now retired majority leader in the house of representatives is he wasn't able to end abortion here while he was a leader here in this congress. and his word to all of us is

don't let this opportunity get away from you. this is the best opportunity. this is the best scenario and the window is open with the pro-life majority in the house and pro-life majority in the senate. the president will sign the bill and the vice president will stand next to him and feeling good about it. and the vice president ap his wife karen will offer a prayer right before an act would happen. and the supreme court is poised for one or two more appointments to that supreme court. nd those appointments being, i expect consistent with president trump's pledge that he will make those nominations out of the list that was produced by the federalist society and confirmed and supported by the heritage foundation and by me and other pro-life activists. the selection that the president made out of those 21 potential

justices to the supreme court was excellent. justice gorsuch, no better choice in my view. and one of the important things that goes into the congressional record is very solidly back channel information is this, the white house interviewed all 21 of those potential or candidates for the supreme court. out of those, they asked the same question, this same question of each one of them and it was this, mr. speaker. if it's not going to be you as the supreme court, who shall it be? every other candidate, every other judge under consideration for appointment to become a supreme court justice, every other one, if it's not to be me, it needs to be neil gorsuch. you couldn't get a higher

endorsement on such a high level position. all of your peers saying, if it's not me, it will be neil gorsuch. we will be happy with his process and decisions he makes for us and i have a lot of reason to have great confidence in him. but i offer that for consideration, mr. speaker. our job, when the window is open, we have to go through that window. 170 co-sponsors and 129 national organizations/leaders that support the heartbeat bill. it's about as close to unanimous across the entire movement in this country as it could possibly be. with 170 co-sponsors and another high number of those who say i'll vote for it, put it on the floor, the vast majority of the pro-life caucus wants it to come to the floor, the vast majority of the values action team wants

it to come to the floor. i don't know who the dissenters here in the house who say it's a bad law. there are a couple of people disagree witthe strategy but not with the policy, at least on this side of the aisle. when the leadership tells the top pro-life organizations in the country, you must be unanimous on this and all of you on the same page and when one organization says i don't want to see this moved, then we have a problem. we have a problem because the will of the people needs to be reflected here in the house of representatives. this is a republican form of government, by constitution. the constitution guarantees a republican form of government. which means a representative form of government. each of us, we have a district of about 750,000 people and it's our job to draw from them their best ideas and couple them with the principles that we have said

we stand for, come here and bring those ideas into the house of representatives and then let those ideas out of 435 congressional districts, compete against each other so the best ideas rise to the top. the ideas that rise to the top need to be the ideas that have the most support, not something that was pulled off the shelf and for something to do here on march for life day. what's the most important thing we could be doing? saving an unborn life. priority for the priority we membs of the house of representatives. what bill has the most co-sponsors on it by far? the heartbeat bill. why wasn't it here on the floor today, mr. speaker? why not? and the reason is because i believe that there was a shall i call it an arrangement made by a

previous speaker that pro-life legislation only moves when it's unanimously supported by the top three pro-life organizations in the country and i count them all as people who have done a lot of good for this county. family research council, tony perkins. a tremendous pro-life, pro-life warrior. and we know that because his office has been targeted and they face violence. tony doesn't blink. he is a former marine. ridden the road together and been out there in those battles and they are a strong, strong pro-life organization. susan b. anthony list, another one of the top three. and that's led by marjorie, who has a terrific heart and very driven and terrific memory about the components of the movement. and her side kick is even closer

friend, marilyn musgrave. and she was a mentor to me and braced me sometimes when i was trying to make sense of things that didn't make sense. and i count them as friends and pro-life warriors and terrific workers and people that are go-to people that i count on keeping things on the rails while i'm distracted with other things. we are almost always on the same page. the other organization is the national right to life. national right to life has been granted a defacto veto power to the effect of it is to olympic a bill from coming to the floor on the house of representatives. there are 129 organizations and leaders that have endorsed and/or support the heartbeat bill h.r. 490. there is only one that does not

and that's the national right to life. and that is led by carol and david. i have spoken with them at great length. not in person. been trying to get those meetings, but it has been more effective -- i have been trying to get those meetings, but we spoke on the phone, mr. speaker. and with carol, the president, before christmas, a week or so before our christmas break, about 45 minutes of intense discussion. and throughout all of that, she has insisted that they're not going to endorse the bill or promote the bill and i couldn't get her to move one inch even though every other organization is on board. i couldn't get her to move one inch. she told me they had a board meeting a couple months earlier and nobody on the board supported the heartbeat bill. how long big is that board? i'm told 50. can you imagine 50 sitting on

the board and not one of them protects a baby that has a heartbeat. when their mission statements says entirely different? it didn't seem right to me and i hope there was another way to get this resolved and i told her at the end of the conversation, i guess we have a couple of weeks before the tension starts to build, but i don't have many nice things i can do yet and i don't think your advice to me is just give up and put the heartbeat bill in the drawer and say h.r. 490 was a nice short and we came up short. how would i go to those 129 organizations and leaders and say we'll give up now because national right to life is not supporting our bill because carol and 50 members of the board presumably and also david don't think it's a good idea to move a heartbeat bill out of the

house of representatives. if they want to wait until the supreme court is ready to receive such a bill without calcatg thatt takes time toetegislation through the house and the senate and to the president's desk and may not happen in this year if we put the heartbeat bill on mitch mcconnell's bill on the senate, we have to have time to bring that bill to the floor of the senate. we are going to have to work it. the longer we stall, the closer we get to the next election. if we get to the next election and lose seats in the house of representatives, this window in the house could close. and then what do they say? well, it was our judgment and wait until the supreme court was ready and wasn't our fault the window closed in the house, the senate or perhaps the presidency. when you have the opportunity to move the agenda, you move the agenda. we have the opportunity to do it. and it is defacto veto power

that the national right to life has because of that arrangement that was put together ta says these three top life organizations have tosh in agreement. why would any speaker grant defacto authority to an outside organization, none of whom have been elected in this republican form of government? why would that be allowed to trump the will of the people? why would that have more value than the considered judgment of the vast majority of the republican majority conference in the house of representatives? how can we say to any one of those 170,our opinion doesn't matter at all because you don't yet have the unanimous enthusiasm behind the top three pro-life organizations in the country? it comes back to national right to life who put out a statement that says we do not oppose the

heartbeat bill. we do not oppose it. the other side of that coin and it's the same coin, we did not support the heartbeat bill. that's the message that speaker ryan gets and that's why this bill wasn't on the floor today. it's the blockage that comes from inactivity. and all that needs to happen is david or carol needs to pick up the phone, call speaker paul ryan, call my office and i'll patch you through and say you know what? we want to move it while we got the chance. the window is open in the house of representatives. you don't have to whip the bill. you don't have to visit any members or spend a single dime of those dollars that are being raised in the pro-life movement except for the cost of the phone call. i'll pay for it. call the speaker and leader mcconnell and say, we do think it is a good idea instead of

saying we do not oppose when really it is you do not support. all you have to do is say let that bl go. just like charlotteon helps ton in "moses," let our people go. let those little babies live. get the bill out of the house to the senate and put the pressure up in the senate. it isn't going to happen unless we take the first step. they learn to walk. they need a chance to get that chance to walk. we need to be able to move the bill off the floor of the house of representatives. this isn't a stretch for public opinion. public opinion is with us. the polling is a little higher n support of h.r. 490, the heartbeat bill and higher on the pain-capable one. and i respect that and i appreciate it. but there isn't some kind of a rule that says you have to

struggle for years before your bill can be heard. the strongest and best ideas that have weathered the debate need to come forward to be moved off the floor of the house of representatives. here's what it is, 170 members signed on. 129 organizations and leaders are supporting the bill. . we need a vote on heart beat bill and it's now blocked because of that inaction. one phone call. or if they wanted to post on their website. instead of we do not oppose the heart beat bill, just post on there, we now support the heart ilat god bless them if they'll do that. because things will move. this heart beat bill is the most popular pro-life bill that's pending in the house of representatives today. and it has been for a long time. for almost this whole congress.

it prevents about 95% of the abortions. and this does push the senate, it pushes pain-capable off of mitch mcconnell's desk and perhaps to the floor of the senate for a vote. it moves the agenda. it helps the other pieces of legislation as well. here's the polling though, mr. speaker, that i think should give people some confidence. and that is that all in all, across the spectrum of democrats, independents and republicans, the heart beat bill as written has 69% of adults, all the way across the spectrum -- spectrum, this is a poll that took place last year. but not that long ago. and here's how it breaks down by party, in case people are worried about that. 86% of republicans support the heart beat bill. h.r. 490. 55% of democrats support the heart beat bill. h.r. 490.

a majority of democrats support the heart beat bill. 55%. and 61% of independents. and when you put that all together and youatch it up for the demographics of the percentages thatre democrats versus independents and republicans, you merge that together, 69% support the heart beat bill. that's a little better than the 20-week pain-capable bill. people understand this. thabeeting heart is in our hearts. and so are these little babies. and i would say to national right to life, whose mission statement almost commands them to support the heart beat bill, you ought to amend your mission statement or support the heart beat bill. and here's one of their founders. i'll say the founder of the pro-life movement and the founder and former president of national right to life. now passed away sadly. and he surely did his part. dr. john c. which willky. here's what he had to say, --

wilky. and i quote, mr. speaker. -- here's what he had to say. and i quote, mr. speaker. when i founded the pro-life movement, it wasn't to regulate how abortions would be done. it was to bring the abortion killing to an end. we have waited too long and that wait has cost us too much. closed quote. dr. john c. wilky. take this back to 1973. e missions there were to end abortion. and yet we're stuck in a rut of incrementalism, moving a tiny little bit at a time. we've saved two million lives in all of this. maybe a few more than two milliolives. no more. and we've watched 60 million babies be aborted and i'm hearing the argument of, well, we really can't move because the supreme court's not ready. and we don't know if there's going to be any retirements in the supreme court. i know there will be retirements

in the supreme court. i'm certain of it. it will be that or there's three ways out of the supreme court. and those folks that were there 100 years ago aren't there now. so we know there's going to be a change in the court. what we don't know is this court may well uphold heart beat because it's more precisely written and more carefully drafted and it answers the right kind of questions. i think it has a better chance of being upheld before the supreme court than pain-capable. but those who pushed pain-capable, 20-week, didn't have those reservations on their bill. but they seem to wonder about this one and say, we shouldn't move heart beat until we have another appointment to the supreme court. how can you let that happen? well, if perhaps the window closes in the house or the senate or the presidency. sitting here twiddling our thumbs and watching babies be aborted at a rate of, oh, and by the way, i did get this piece from national right to life. and the conversation just yesterday. that when they began this effort

, there were as many as six million abortions a year in america. i hadn't heard that number before and i didn't go back to verify it. but that's what my ears heard yesterday. and we've now gotten that number down to under a million abortions a year. that's considered progress. and it is progress. and he gave me the exact number. 900,000-some abortions last year. i didn't commit that number to memory. but it means something different to me. that's a million abortions a year every year. that means in 45 years vell -- we'll have another 45 million abortions on our conscience. and that 06 million turns into -- 60 million abortion turns into -- 60 million abortion turns into 105 million abortions. and to take pride in getting it down to less than a million, as if that's a milestone, troubles

me considerably. and it might not have if i had just only heard it in that context. but i heard it in a different context four or five months ago. standing over here on the floor, mr. speaker. nd there's a gentlelady from the democrat party who is one who -- there are really only a couple of pro-life people over here anymore, so you know she's not pro-life. but she asked me why i have this heart on my la pell. and told her -- lapell. and i told her it's for the heart beat bill, h.r. 4906789 i want to protect these babies -- 49 to -- 490. i want to protect these babies. and she said, i don't know why you want to do that, steve. we have abortions down tound a million a year -- down to under a million a year. and i said, i want to save them all. i want to save every single one of them. at's why i'm goingwear this until we get this job done. but it was stunning to me that she would say that, even being a pro-choice representative here in the united states house of

representatives. and when i matched that up with almost the same thing, from a leader of the national right to life, i think, wove got to take a fresh look -- we've got to take a fresh look. they're too stuck in their ways. we will never get to the end of abortion if we're married to tiny incrementalism. we have an obligation to take the opportunities that god has given us and the voters have given us and act on them. and i would go to personhood, the moment of conception, and do that in an instant if we could get that done. but we can't define medically and precisely that moment of conception. but we have defined medically and precisely the heart beat. that's our marker. the heart beat in that ultrasound. we had a little witness come before the constitution subcommittee, which i chair. held a hearing on the heart beat bill. and this little guy was the youngest witness to testify in the history of the united states congress.

i believe. nd he's an 18-week developed little boy in his mother's womb. and we had the ultrasound sitting next to his mother, but the tape of the ultrasound that they'd taken hours before. this little boy's name is lincoln glen miller. and that little guy swhorksed his ultrasound and we showed him there in his mother's womb, and we listened to his heart beat and his arm was out like this and saidnt the microphone, lincoln, will you move your arm? and in an instant he jerked his arm towards his mouth. and i said, lincoln, can you suck your thumb? and in a moment he put his thumb in his mouth and began to suck his thumb. and i said a little bit later, lincoln, can you talk to us? and you could see his mouth moving as if he's trying to talk. in this ultrasound on the big screen in the united states congress in the house judiciary committee, constitution subcommittee, we watched this little guy, lincoln glen miller,

testify to the humanity of an 18-week developed little child. we know this life begins at the moment of conception. we know that we can precisely define that heart beat. we know that if you have to check for that heart beat, it's awfully hard to lie about it when you have to keep the records. we know that it's got noon our conscience that abortion stops -- gotten into our conscience that abortion stops a beating heart and we all in our mind's ear can hear that rhythm of thabeeting heart. i used 1 -- that beating heart. i used 158 beats per minute. that's what's in my iphone right now. and i can listen to that little baby as that little baby grows and develops. i want to see all of these babies grow and develop. i want to see every one of them come to birth in full term. i pray that they're mentally healthy and that they're physically healthy. and i don't have any more asks after. that boys or girls, god bring them to me in whatever order they might come. but let's get them born and let's take care of tm and

nurture themn nd and body andas our founding fathers envisioned when they wrote the language into our declaration of independence and prioritized life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. god bless them. let's do the right thing. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess subject to the call of the chair.

>> as we showed you, we did have cameras outside the white house. it's possible we'll hear from senator is human when are that meeting is over -- schumer when

that meet something over. we'll keep you posted on thafflet while we're here we'll take you thrive a briefing that has been under way with the democratic leader in the house, nancy pelosi. house has done its work for now. let's take you live to the briefing here on c-span. >> the department of defense has been fund by short-term c.r.'s for several years now and that has deprivinged our military of the certainty that they need. mr. sanford: in order to be prepared and that -- ms. sanchez: in order to be prepared and that puts the security of our country at risk. there's no relief for dreamers in this c.r., even though a majority of the members of congress, if a bill would come to the floor, would vote to support providing relief to dreamers. and there are many, many other areas that my colleagues have pointed out. mr. clyburn gave an excellent example of community health centers and how republicans are stepping over dollars to pick up dimes. it's foolish. it's wasteful. and the basic function of keeping our government open,

keeping the lights on, is not that hard. yet their dysfunction continues. so i call on our republican colleagues to work with us to resolve these issues and put them behind us and move on to the next set of challenges. because there always are next challenges for us to try to resolve. but instead they continue to lock us out of the room and then cry that we're not at the table helping them. and i can't think of anything that's more hypocritical. so democrats will say we're here waiting patiently for them to extend a hand to work together to address these issues that there is agreement on. and get our government on a sane path towards certain funding that allows our country to provide the quality of life that our constituents deserve and have earned. thank you. ms. pelosi: thank you. one of those issues of

agreement, our colleague, representative peter welch of vermont, led the letter to the president that he received either yesterday or maybe hopefully saw this morning. which spelled out what those priorities are, about opioids and addressing the needs of our veterans. national institutes of health. to promote the health of the american people. issues that relate to the pensions that are endangered in our country. of course the issues that relate to natural disasters and , as mr. hoyer mentioned, and all over our country. especially focusing on puerto rico andhe virgin nds, which have been underfunded in the previous bill that came forward. you know, we have the thanksgiving break, we had the christmas break, and every year the republicans plan the davos break. we come in for a week or two and then we're out. and why would that be? the senate is in. why is the house out?

some of the republican leadership can go visit their top 1% friends in davos? and celebrate the passage of a very unfair tax bill that increases the deficit, undermining our future by having 83% of the benefit goes to the top 1%? these are all connected. because the increase in the deficit and the reduction in revenue are from the high end, haven aim county on -- an impact on what we are able to afford as we go into budget discussions. so we know that we'll be able -- we know that the caucus wants to resist any increase in domestic spending. i want to make this point further. domestic spending includes homeland security, veterans' affairs, anti-terrorism activity at the justice department, and the state department. these are security functions. yet they are on the domestic side of the tally. so when they try to suppress

that budget, they're suppressing not only security functions, but other measures of the strength of our country. i was so excited to hear mr. clyburn talk about south caroli. because just last week i learned that my brother's grandson is going to fort jackson. he just enlisted. our family is so proud. one of my brothers -- my four brothers who served in the army, one of them started out there too. so this is about certainly supporting our defense, our department of defense, and general mattis told us he can't take these c.r.'s. it's just not a way to run a military. and it's not a way to run a government. my colleague, mr. cicilline, reminded me of mr. welch's letter. did you want to speak to that at all? mr. cicilline: i just wanted to reinforce what leader pelosi said. that we have over 170 of our colleagues who communicated to

the white house the five priorities that we thought were important to be included in the continuing resolution. this parity between defense and nondefense spending. responding to the opioid crisis in our country. making sure we fund the children's health insurance program. take care of the dreamers. and be sure that we ensure our veterans have the resources they need. as the leader says, these are not controversial. this wasn't sort of a wish list of every democratic wish. these are all bipartisan issues which enjoy bipartisan support. and all we've asked the republicans is to engage with us, include these issues so we can work together and so far they have been unwilling to do that. there are over 1706 us who joined in that communication -- 170 of us who joined in that communication. ms. pelosi: havingaid,hat i think we could come to an agreement, as mr. hoyer said. i think agreement is in reach -- reach. they just have to make the decision. questions? reporter: right now your colleague, chuck schumer, is over at the white house meeting one-on-one with president trump. what do you think this signals

for the chance of president trump making a deal? ms. pelosi: we'll see. when they come out of the room. we have worked very closely, house and senate, democrats in trying to work in a bipartisan way on what our priorities are. in this debate. i've said before, even if there were no dreamer on the face of the earth, we still have our issues about parity and pay-fors and that's -- we can just sit down and settle that. i don't know the extent of the conversation because it was an invitation of the president. but mr. schumer is well aware of the priorities that we share. so i'm optimistic that that overture was made. hopefully to be constructive. reporter: with the idea that they did pass the bill last night, the republican c.r., with just enough votes on their side. no democrats went up on the oard until they hit 220. obviously the bigger problem on this bill seems to have been

with the senate. you said you expect senator schumer to represent some of your priorities. what does that mean -- they have to figure out something with the senate first, but obviously they have to enlist your side so there's buy-in over here. there's certainly going to be a lot of republicans who don't want -- [inaudible] -- what will that potentiallyook like, depending on e message senator schumer delivers? ms. pelosi:hat s que a convoluted statement. [laughter] honest to god. you want to repeat the question? just the last part of it. what does that look like? i'm going to defer that one to steny. t's far too complicated. reporter: [inaudible] mr. hoyer: the reality is the republicans over the -- since 2011, have not had the votes on the house side in almost every matter of fits cal -- of fiscal policy. ms. pelosi: they have the majority.

mr. hoyer: they've always needed democrats. i told you, on the first c.r., the 90-day c.r., the mr. perdue: in which we should have ream -- the period in which we should have reached agreement, 90 republicans voted against that. so when mr. mccarthy or somebody else says you're letting down the military, the chairman of the armed services committee, republican, mac thornberry of texas, voted against that c.r. now, having said that, senator schumer and leader pelosi have been working for some time to try to get to an agreement. so senator schumer knows what our priorities are. and i'm sure he's going to be discussing with leader pelosi on a very close basis as soon as he gets back as to what was discussed. having said that, i hope they reach an agreement. i hope they reach an agreement on the things that i mentioned, on which we have agreement. including the caps, including dreamers, including chip. and including all the other

things that i mentioned. so i'm hopeful that the president of the united states, as did he in september, we had no-drama action, having to pass the c.r. every democrat voted for it. it was a no drama. why? because the president said, that makes sense, we have agreement. let's move forward. which is exactly what we did. i hope that senator schumer and the president get to that point and -- because i think we have a basis for agreement that, as i said, i think we could do as early -- later on this afternoon. reporter: [inaudible] mr. hoyer: yes. did i see daylight? you mean differences? yes. reporter: how about getting something done? ms. pelosi: how many questions are you going to ask? [laughter] mr. hoyer: let me reiterate. 24 members of the senate and

the house were in the white house sitting around the counter table and the president of the united states said, we need to protect the dreamers. he actually used daca. we need to protect daca. and we need to do that first. we agree. ms. pelosi: let me just say, in that vain, that -- vein, that if he would speak to -- the speaker or mr. mcconnell they will say to you, well, they'll say to us, we have to know what the president will sign. is that not the ongoing course? we have to know what the president will sign. hopefully mr. schumer will find out what the president will sign. because i do believe, as congresswoman sanchez said or vice chair said, the votes are there in the house and the enate if they bring up this. reporter: do you support the graham-durbin proposal, even though it has this down payment

on the border wall? ms. pelosi: right now our position is that we want the dream act and we're willing to -- we know our responsibility to secure our borders, north and south, and that's where our conversation is. so thank you all very much. to be continued. we may be seeing each other further today. one thing i have to say , is i'm so glad chuck schumer is the one who is over there. [laughter] thank you all very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2018] >> democratic leaders at the capitol. the house has passed the continuing resolution.

they did that yesterday. 237--- 230-197. but there's likely further work ahead. here on c-span, we're going to take a moment here to find out your thoughts on the government -- potential government shutdown at midnight tonightment >> the democratic leader nancy pelosi mentioning chuck schumer at the white house. saying that he's meeting with the president at this hour. we'll keep you posted. we have cameras there. they have could come to a close -- they have to come to a cloture vote. so far among the republicans we know have opposed in some form

the bill, that includes senators graham, paul, lee and rounds. but last night they failed to move forward to that cloture vote. so a bit of a holding pattern in the senate today. you can follow liveage of the senate obviously over on c-span2. we just saw, as you just saw house democratic leaders. the house itself, though, is also in a holding pattern. even though it was anticipated that they would be done for the day, the majority leader earlier saying that. this is politico's d playbook this afternoon reporting on what happened in the house and why or how leadership changed its mind. they write that house majority leader kevin mccarthy signaled to our colleague that he would send the house home. but then during a prolonged but meaningless vote series in the hour the g.o.p. leadership started telling its members to stay close to d.c. and replain flexible.

they write -- host: and the story of the hour in terms of a potential shutdown and the continuing resolution reflected in this headline at l.a. -- latimes.com. host: your calls are welcome. 202-248-8920 for democrats. 202-748-8921 for republicans. all others, 202-748-8922. in a couple minutes we'll show you the briefing from the budget director earlier on the potential shutdown. let's hear from earl in

louisiana. go ahead. caller: good afternoon. good afternoon. thank you for taking my call. i'm a bit shocked that the democrats are putting illegal immigrants in front of the american public on the stance that they're taking over they're not going to approve the budget until something is done for daca. that makes no sense to me at all. it just shows you where the democrats are. they're not worried about the military, who will not get paid. or anybody else that would not get paid. i know they get paid after the thing's over, but it's ridiculous that the democrats are placing immigrants, illegal immigrants, in front of the american public. especially chip. there's no guarantee for them, if they don't vote for the budget to be passed, that chip will be on the new proposal that would come up if there would be a settlement. host: and that is included in

the current short-term measure. that re-authorizing of chip through -- for another six years. on the issue of the military, the defense secretary, james mattis, today speaking about national security policies and an event we covered. he was also raising concerns over the potential shutdown at midnight tonight. and the impact of that. and past shutdowns as well. on the troops and e military more broadly. wayne is in new hampshire on our others line. caller: yes. i think that they should just ome together and get a retail-proof bill. and pass it. not only a message of unity, but also message to the president. host: part of that coming together to be this meeting at the white house going on now between chuck schumer and the democratic leader and president trump. jake from "politico" tweeted our bout that meeting --

democrats line next. this is cleveland and darin. hello there. caller: how are you doing, sir? i personally think it's been a while. i feel like we should have seen this one coming. the negligence of the republican party has caused us to come to this point. firstly, i think this whole daca thing right here, like, i don't know, it feels like trump was making a lot of moves to -- it seems really biased, personally. host: do you think that dealing with the daca issue should be included in this short-term measure, with the deadline for some of those folks coming up in march? caller: i do think it should be considered. the americans citizens should

come first, but we shouldn't forget the true american also have. we were helping -- the core values of america consist of helping others and just bringing ourselves up. we're a melting pot of different races. that's what makes america special. host: appreciate your input. let's hear from james on our republican line. factoryville, pennsylvania. caller: hi. i just need some clarification here. the other day i was watching another channel and they had a young lady on there, contributor to the channel, and she said, yes, i believe her name is hemingway, or in any case, to get to the point, we have something like 800,000-plus daca people. she also said, as far as the dreamers, there's over three million. can you clarify that for me? is there three million dreamers

- i mean, is that close to four million people that they want to make more or less legal? host: i do recall that conversation this morning on "washington journal." there's a difference between those impacted by the daca decision of president obama and the broader definition of dreamers. if we can do that we'll call it up in an article here. if not in the coming minutes, in the coming hours. thanks for pointing that out. we'll hear from steve knoxville, tennessee. on the others line. caller: yes, sir. i think that the republicans ought to just call their hand. i do not believe there's 87% of the american people for the daca. thank you. host: we're facing a potential shutdown of the government. at midnight tonight. the current short-term measure expires. the house has passed the bill. the next short-term measure. they passed it last night it. would fund the government through february 16.

you can send us your comments on twitter as well @cspan. his from kate -- caller: hello. i'm pretty much an independent. but i don't understand why the government should shut down for any reason. and at this point it seems like the main issue is the funding for the wall and if trump's campaign promise and make mexico pay for it, that would eliminate this whole problem. as far as the shutdown. i don't think they're going to throw thousands of people out or millions of people out of the united states. if i was a democrat, i would relax and just do what i know i should do. i think daca's going to pretty much take care of it self in the end. thank you. host: ok. david next up in lafayette, louisiana. republican line. talking about the potential

shutdown tonight. what do you think? caller: i think there's a much bigger problem in our country. and in washington. i think since clinton, now we're finding out about the clinton foundation and what was going on with that, and then i don't know about george w. bush, i don't know a lot about him, but i know that personally saw obama try to destroy the country for eight years. now we have trump in there. he's trying to change things and turn things upside down. then you have the democrats like schumer and pelosi that are just blockading everything trump does. so we have a totally dysfunctional country. so whether they -- why wouldn't we have a shutdown? because the democrats haven't said yes to anything that trump has proposed. and then we have c-span -- i'm so sorry, not c-span, we have cnn, msnbc, nbc, they're all lying about the president. and then we have the f.b.i. and department of justice working

together to frame this president. ask nunes about that. so we have this major crap going on and we're worried about a three-day shutdown. we need to worry about the overall shape of our country. host: david in louisiana. we're taking a couple more minutes of your calls and comments about the potential shutdown tonight, the scenario. the senate's in session. ben cardin of maryland speaking currently on the senate floor. you can follow live senate coverage on c-span2. democratic leaders at the white house meeting wittrump at this hour. we have meras outside the white house and we'll bring you any comments live. if there are any. with chuck schumer after that meeting. meanwhile, the house -- members of the house have been told to sit tight, from what we understand. we'll get a couple more minutes of your calls and show you the briefing here in a moment from mick mulvaney. tim is in south carolina.

caller: yes, sir. thanks for taking my call. i've seen this country for a lot of years, a par trooper until i was wounded in iraq, and i never did it for the money. if the military called me back, i would go back today. and i guarantee you all my infantry brothers, including my son, who now serves at fort campbell, will continue their mission without pay. it's not about the pay. if it was about the pay, nobody would be in the military. i think there's one thing that all politicians have forgotten. it's a privilege to serve this country. all politicians. democrats and republicans. they forgot. i earned the right to be called a veteran. i'm wondering if they've earned the right to be called a politician. thank you. host: thank you. as we mentioned, the secretary of defense, james mattis, spoke earlier today about the

national security strategy, raising concerns about the impact of e buet caps and the potential government shdown. we'll try to show that to you later in our program schedule. iowa, this is amon. democrats line. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. since we're on the subject about what soldiers would serve and why they serve, and i would caveat on what the gentleman just said. i served in the military as well. and one of the reasons that soldiers do serve is to make sure that our country's ideals and our constitution are maintained. and i think what we're seeing, some of us who call ourselves americans true and through, is that our american ideals are being torn down. by the very people that we're supposed to trust to uphold them. now, if you go back to whenever this country started, its

inception of immigration, when they started to legally look at why we should allow people from other countries to come in, we had already made it a tendency to accept people from other countries. and it wasn't a matter of why -- host: amon, are you still there? caller: you don't have to be oppressed, this is the place where you don't have to worry about prejudice. you can keep your religion. you can -- as long as you are a contributor to our society. please come. we'll have you. we've invited the immigrantto come in. they brought their children and now they're in this dac program. we should honor that program. and the funding issue that's standing before the government right now. they can solve that. they're supposed to be the smartest guys in the country. they're supposed to have the minds to work around this problem. i have faith that they will.

and more power to all of the government workers who are standing by and have all the faith in our government and pray for them all. thank you. host: a number of the agencies and departments have sent out nolets to their employees about the potential impact of a shutdown. to be prepared for that. i wanted to point out too that we mentioned the president meeting with chuck schumer at this hour, at the white house. no word yet on anything that's come out of that meeting or whether that meet something over yet. we assume it's still under way. here's what could possibly be on the table. this is c.q. this afternoon write being a possible democratic alternative. across the capitol, they write, senate democrats were preparing to offer an alternative spending package to the republicans' four-week bill. in part to help

host: part of the package that's been proposed. you can read more of that at cq quom. we're standing boy to hear -- cq.com. we're standing by to hear any possible comments from chuck schumer. he's meeting with president trump. we'll take you meanwhile back to the bhoust from just a short while ago. the budget director, mick mulvaney, and legislative affairs director, mark short, briefed reporters on the potential shutdown tonight.