Providing For Consideration of H.R. 161, Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, and Providing For Consideration of H.R. 36, Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
House Resolution 38 provides for a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 161, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act.
The rule before us today, Mr. Speaker, provides for consideration of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. It is truly fitting that the House considers this legislation in the shadow of the 42nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions that gave Americans abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy.
This legislation is a commonsense step in recognizing the truth that science has made more clear with the passage of time: the unborn child in the womb is alive and a functioning member of the human family.
Science has shown us that the most fundamental precursors to an unborn child feeling pain are already in place by 8 weeks in development. Necessary connections between the brain and spinal cord are in place and complete by 18 weeks.
The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony by expert physicians that the earlier premature babies are delivered, the more acutely they feel pain. It is clear that unborn children at 20 weeks of development are capable of feeling pain and deserving of protection.
In spite of the 60 percent of Americans who believe we should limit abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will continue to protest this sensible legislation, seeking to keep us in the company of only seven other nations that allow elective abortion after 20 weeks, which includes such well-known human rights leaders as North Korea, China, and Vietnam.
This vital, lifesaving legislation is not the only important legislation the House will consider this week. This rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 161, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act.
The Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act recognizes the positive impact America's shale revolution has had on energy prices and the potential it holds to lower them further. We are in the midst of another hard winter, and red tape reduction is necessary to ensure we have the infrastructure needed to ensure low-cost natural gas is able to reach our coldest States when they need it most without price shocks or shortages.
H.R. 161 introduces critical reform to ensure prompt consideration of necessary permitting requests for construction or updates to natural gas pipelines, providing certainty to energy companies and the consumers they serve.
The legislation would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve or deny a requested pipeline certificate no later than 12 months after receiving a complete application that is ready to be processed and has engaged in the prefiling process.
H.R. 161 also ensures that relevant agencies provide approval or denial within 90 days of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission completing its final environmental document.
Finally, the legislation would put permits into effect, notwithstanding agencies' failures to provide approval within the time mandated, with allowances for the addition of conditions consistent with the final environmental document.
H.R. 161 is the reintroduction of H.R. 1900, which passed this House on a bipartisan basis in the 113th Congress. H.R. 1900 received extensive committee consideration, including numerous hearings on the underlying issues, prompting the legislation, as well as the subcommittee hearing and subcommittee and full committee markups on the bill.
Both H.R. 36 and H.R. 161 are truly important legislation that Americans would be well-served to have considered this week, and I commend both my bills to my colleagues as deserving of their support.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I need to remind this House that during the Democrats' time in the majority, there were two rules packages providing consideration of seven unrelated measures.
In the 110th Congress, their first year in the majority, the rules package provided for consideration of five measures.
In the 111th Congress, the Democrat majority provided for the consideration of two separate measures in the rules package.
The Democrat majority went directly to the floor with these bills, with no committee consideration and without even allowing the Rules Committee to debate these measures or report an appropriate rule for consideration.
In the 110th Congress, Ranking Member Slaughter and Democrats on the Rules Committee reported three additional closed rules, starting the Congress out with eight closed rules in the opening weeks.
In the 111th Congress, Democrats reported out two additional closed rules, for a total of four closed rules in the opening weeks of that Congress.
Unlike our Democrat colleagues, the Speaker and Chairman Sessions had provided the opportunity to have hearings before the Rules Committee.
It is our goal to return to regular order now that our committees are organizing, but the false attacks by my colleagues do not stand up to the light of day when you compare our records.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the preeminent defenders of life in this Congress.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Once again, we find ourselves in a position in which we must correct the record.
Over the last 4 years, Republicans have implemented reforms to make the U.S. House of Representatives more open and transparent than ever. Under this GOP majority, Members on both sides of the aisle have been allowed to offer significantly more amendments--and the House has operated under far more open rules--than were allowed under the previous Democrat-controlled House.
The GOP majority allowed nearly 1,500 amendments to be considered on the House floor in the 113th Congress. Under Speaker Pelosi, the House did not consider a single bill under an open rule throughout the 111th Congress. That is the definition of a closed process, Mr. Speaker, and it is precisely what Speaker Boehner successfully changed to start the 112th Congress and to continue throughout the 113th Congress. Under the current GOP majority, the House has considered 38 open or modified open rules.
When you compare the record of the Republican majority and the most recent Democrat majority, any fair analysis will show that Republicans are running a more open, transparent House of Representatives that allows for greater participation by all Members.
The problem throughout the last Congress resided in the Senate and its failure to act on almost everything passed by the House. When the Senate did decide to act, then-majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid, virtually locked down the amendment process on the Senate floor. When you compare the nearly 1,500 amendments considered on the House floor with the Senate's record of inaction, a more accurate picture emerges.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Massachusetts knows very well that the number of closed rules last Congress was a procedural effect of Republicans' efforts to reopen the government. America tires of this debate. Let's return to real issues with an impact on Americans' lives.
Mr. Speaker, we go to extraordinary lengths in this country to save the lives of born human beings because we value life so much. However, there are many who do not hold the unborn in the same esteem, and that is tragic for the more than 1 million unborn babies who lose their lives every year. There is nothing more important than protecting voiceless unborn children and their families from the travesty of abortion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to respond to the charge that this legislation is unconstitutional. In 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act as an appropriate use of Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause. This legislation follows that act's model by asserting Congress' authority to extend protection to pain-capable unborn children under the Commerce, Equal Protection, Due Process, and Enforcement Clauses of the 14th Amendment.
It is sad that opponents of this legislation are attempting to use the Constitution as a roadblock to prevent lifesaving legislation, but the Supreme Court's position is clear.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is disappointing to hear my colleagues criticize this legislation in this way. We consider many weighty issues in this body with great implications for our future, but few of those issues command our attention as much as those that impact children, as this legislation does. This is right and appropriate.
I fear for both our future and our present if we continue to tolerate the death of innocent children in the womb. Every life matters. It is my hope that a culture of life will take hold and all children will be protected in law in the near future, but today we have an opportunity to come together and find consensus that nearly fully developed, viable children should be protected, particularly as individuals capable of experiencing great pain.
The necessity of that protection is made even clearer when considering the type of abortion these growing children are subjected to.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that the American people understand exactly what happens when they hear the word ``abortion.'' According to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America, babies aborted at 14 weeks or later are often subjected to dismemberment abortions, which are incredibly gruesome and painful.
What follows is heart-wrenching to describe, Mr. Speaker, but we must face the truth of what we are currently permitting. As if in a horror movie, the abortionist begins by suctioning out the amniotic fluid, then rips the limbs from the infant's body with a steel tool and finishes by crushing the skull of the infant he has dismembered.
Take a moment to consider that. This is the most common abortion performed in the second trimester, not a rare tragedy.
As a Nation, we rightfully give the safety of our children the highest importance. In spite of that, we continue to allow these horrific procedures that an overwhelming majority of nations in the world have sworn off. As I mentioned before, only seven nations allow elective abortions after 20 weeks' gestation.
How can America continue to be one of them? We must leave this practice behind.
That is why I am a cosponsor of the underlying legislation to prohibit elective abortions in the United States past 20 weeks. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a commonsense reform to our American principles of protecting life as the most fundamental constitutional right.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Thankfully, the American people recognize that we are speaking about protecting vulnerable lives here. A March 2013 poll conducted by The Polling Company found that 64 percent of the public supports a law like the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibiting an abortion after 20 weeks, when an unborn baby can feel pain, unless the life of the mother is in danger.
Supporters include 47 percent of those who identified themselves as ``pro-choice'' in the poll. The poll also found that 63 percent of women believe that abortion should not be permitted after the point where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel pain. That finding was not an unusual outlier. It is representative of the true beliefs of the American people.
According to a 2013 Gallup Poll, 64 percent of Americans support prohibiting second trimester abortions, and 80 percent support prohibiting third trimester abortions. Even The Huffington Post found in 2013 that 59 percent of Americans support limiting abortions after 20 weeks.
Let no one believe that our concern is only for the child. A study in the Obstetrics and Gynecology journal found that a woman seeking an abortion after 20 weeks' gestation is 35 times more likely to die from an abortion than she would have been from an abortion in the first trimester. At 21 weeks or more, she is 91 times more likely to die. Abortion is a danger to both lives, the mother and the child.
Mr. Speaker, Congress cannot sit idly by while this grotesque and brutal procedure, which rips the tiny baby apart, limb from limb in the womb, and threatens the life of the mother, is performed in our country. This is why it is necessary for Congress to pass H.R. 36 and protect the lives of these unborn children from excruciating pain.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I said at the opening of this debate, this rule will provide for consideration of H.R. 161, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act. That legislation, which passed the House on a bipartisan basis last Congress, will reduce red tape and ensure that Americans in all parts of the country will be able to benefit from the energy revolution that has occurred on our Nation's private lands.
It is the coldest season of the year. It is my strong hope that we will be able to enact this legislation soon, to ensure that in winters to come residents of the northeast and other high-cost areas of the country are able to heat their homes affordably.
Before we consider our budgets or the foolishness of red tape, though, we must return to our founding principles. We must remember that life is the most fundamental of all rights. It is sacred and God-given.
Even the President said in last night's speech: ``I want our actions to tell every child, in every neighborhood: Your life matters, and we are committed to improving your life chances, as committed as we are to working on behalf of our own kids.''
But, Mr. Speaker, millions of babies have been robbed of that right in this, the freest country in the world. That is a tragedy beyond words and a betrayal of what we, as a nation, stand for.
Before liberty, equality, free speech, freedom of conscience, the pursuit of happiness, and justice for all, there has to be life; and yet for millions of aborted infants, life is exactly what they have been denied. An affront to life for some is an affront to life for every one of us.
One day, we hope it will be different. We hope life will cease to be valued on a sliding scale. We hope the era of elective abortions, ushered in by an unelected Court, will be closed and collectively deemed one of the darkest chapters in American history. But until that day, it remains a solemn duty to stand up for life.
Regardless of the length of this journey, we will continue to speak for those who cannot, and we will continue to pray to the One who can change the hearts of those in desperation and those in power who equally hold the lives of the innocent in their hands.
May we, in love, defend the unborn; may we, in humility, confront this national sin; and may we mourn what abortion reveals about the conscience of our Nation. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for life by voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source