Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3495, Women's Public Health And Safety Act, And Waiving A Requirement Of Clause 6(a) Of Rule XIII With Respect To Consideration Of Certain Resolutions Reported From The Committee On Rules
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 444 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety Act.
Over the past few months, extremely disturbing information has come to light about the activities of abortion providers and their sale of unborn children's hearts and other organs for compensation. In light of those discoveries, we provide for consideration today of crucial legislation to ensure States are free to ensure their limited taxpayers' dollars do not provide sustaining funding to abortion providers whose activities are found repugnant.
H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety Act, allows States to make a decision identical to the one this House made earlier this month when we passed H.R. 3134, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act, which stopped the flow of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood as investigations continue into its sale of unborn children's parts.
As my colleagues noted during debate on H.R. 3134, arguments from the minority that this bill will prevent women from accessing health care ring hollow. We know that federally qualified health centers and rural health centers outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics at a rate of 20 to 1.
Of these over 13,000 federally qualified health centers and rural health centers, women have access to any healthcare service provided by Planned Parenthood or other abortion providers with one obvious exception. Because they are federally funded, these true health centers do not perform abortions.
Clearly, despite opponents' best efforts to argue otherwise, this bill does not deny healthcare services to women. It does allow States to decide whether their Medicaid funds should support a provider whose atrocities have shocked our national conscience and devalued human life.
It is not surprising, though, that we are hearing these hollow arguments about access to healthcare services, as the political machinery of abortion providers has kicked into high gear with scare tactics to protect their business. Abortion is, after all, a business. Planned Parenthood is the single largest abortion business in the country.
Recently, they performed over 325,000 abortions in 1 year. That is nearly 900 every day, at a rate of over 35 an hour. They are able to continue that activity, in part, because Planned Parenthood has received over $1 billion in 3 years from Medicaid alone. I have spoken previously on the floor about the absurdity of providing taxpayer funds to organizations that have had their willingness to accept compensation for the remains of unborn children exposed for all to see.
Several States, including Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, and Indiana, have recognized that alarming truth and acted on their own to stop providing abortion providers with taxpayer dollars through Medicaid. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has forced those States to continue providing taxpayer dollars to abortion providers.
Thankfully, when the Framers of our Constitution established our Nation, they saw fit to give States a right to determine their own affairs and the disposition of their citizens' taxes. Today, we restore federalism to the Medicaid program and enable States to make their own choices on which Medicaid providers to accept, allowing them to stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to organizations that accept compensation for the sale of well-developed unborn children's hearts and bodies.
Mr. Speaker, I commend this rule and the underlying bill to my colleagues for their support.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard the question, Why haven't you done this before? Unfortunately, the full depths to which abortion providers have sunk was not previously public knowledge. The recent release of a number of hidden camera videos exposing the painful dismemberment of unborn children to facilitate the sale of their body parts by Planned Parenthood has provided clear evidence that truly repugnant activities are rampant in the abortion industry and that taxpayer support should never be provided to organizations that participate in the trade of human tissue.
One key Planned Parenthood abortionist even said: ``We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I'm not gonna crush that part, I'm gonna basically crush below, I'm gonna to crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact.''
In these days of 3-D ultrasounds and high-definition screens, it is impossible to hide the humanity of these child victims. They have fingers and toes, heartbeats, and organs developed enough that tissue collectors will pay $60 a specimen for them.
In light of the serious questions raised by these videos, the House Committees on Energy and Commerce, Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform have each launched investigations.
While Planned Parenthood does not receive direct Federal funding for abortions, these investigations are warranted, as a recent report from the Government Accountability Office shows that the organization receives an average of 500 million taxpayer dollars each year for other lines of business. Money is fungible, and the Federal funds that Planned Parenthood receives ultimately subsidize their abortion services.
Mr. Speaker, that is why today's legislation is so important. In light of the atrocities uncovered in abortion facilities across the country, it is vital that States be empowered to choose to withhold Medicaid funds from flowing to abortion providers that deliberately dismember unborn children to receive compensation for their organs and other body parts.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
For those who complain that this bill isn't properly named, let us not forget that at least half of the unborn children who are victims of abortion are female who would grow up to be women. Far too many supporters of abortion on demand ignore that reality and the fact that many abortions are sex-selection abortions.
Until they confront that, how can they parse bill titles, particularly those that protect all existing funding for women's health, while ensuring women and their children are not party to the sale of tiny hearts and organs for compensation?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Harris).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about the Ex-Im Bank because they know when they talk about protecting organizations that sell babies' hearts and lungs, they are losing.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the minority also claim that women would no longer have access to healthcare services. It is important to remember that this bill merely stops the Obama administration's current practice of using Medicaid to force States into including abortionists in their provider network. Each State can take its specific needs into consideration when determining what, if any, action to take under this bill. Claims that 13,000 federally qualified and rural health centers aren't sufficient fail to reflect the fact that community health centers have grown significantly since 2010.
According to HRSA data, health centers have grown so much that, in the years since 2010, they have acquired 3.4 million more patients, 1.9 million of whom are women. And as our colleague from Maryland pointed out, they are often open more days and more hours than Planned Parenthood clinics are. They are providing better and more comprehensive services to women.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I repeat, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about the Ex-Im Bank because they know that when they talk about protecting organizations that sell babies' hearts and lungs, they are losing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
My colleagues continue to hold up regular order as an excuse for their unwillingness to stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to organizations that dismember children. Thankfully, there are committee hearings being held on this issue even now that will continue to expose the wrongs of the abortion industry. Here today, though, we take the simple step of stopping funding to organizations that sell children's body parts.
My colleague's newfound affection for regular order is a poor objection to the passage of this legislation to protect women and children from being parties to trafficking in human tissue. It is not extreme to want to protect the most vulnerable, the unborn, from having their body parts being sold and the use of taxpayer dollars to aid such enterprises.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard today about outrageous activities that are ongoing in the abortion industry as it takes apart tiny babies with beating hearts and cute little fingers and toes. It is truly saddening that the reaction in this Chamber isn't unanimous agreement that the clinics where this has occurred be closed and those responsible be sanctioned for their reprehensible actions. We haven't even been able to come to agreement with those on the other side that Federal grants to these organizations from the Department of Health and Human Services stop immediately.
Now we try again to find common ground. Today, the legislation before us would take the small but vital step of allowing those States that choose, and only those States, to stop funding abortion providers through Medicaid. This legislation wouldn't tell New York or Massachusetts or California that they can't give their taxpayer dollars to an organization that sells body parts. It would, however, enable Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, or Indiana to do so.
The principle of federalism, that Americans are free to come together with others in their community and establish the principles by which they will govern themselves, is a bedrock for our Nation. Even if opponents of this legislation have become callous to the unheard cries of unborn children dismembered for compensation, they should rally to the cause of federalism in order to allow their own communities to exercise the freedom it protects.
What a sad day it is when we can no longer even unite around our founding principles, one of which was that life is the first unalienable right. When we ignore the need to protect that right for the smallest of our brothers and sisters, we should not be surprised by the erosion of our other rights, including the right to self-governance prohibited by federalism.
The exposure of the ongoing tragedy of crushed young lives must spur us to unite to stop this imposition of Federal power on States and their citizens and restore to them the choice of protecting children from being sold as organ donors before even taking their first breath. This is what H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety Act, would accomplish, and I commend it and this rule providing for its consideration to my colleagues for their support.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 444 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:
Sec 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3611) to reauthorize and reform the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 3611.
--
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution ..... [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule. ..... When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source