Diane Black

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Chairman, our Founding Fathers did not mince words when they authored the Second Amendment to our Constitution. They spoke plainly and with conviction in writing, ``the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' Unfortunately, this administration hasn't always seen it that way. Recently, President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives enacted a quiet change to its form 4473--a mandatory document for most gun transactions--that requires Americans to disclose their race and ethnicity in order to complete the sale. What is more, the failure to collect this information is considered an ATF violation that could result in government penalties for the gun dealer. By placing an extra barrier of complexity between the law-abiding citizens and their right to own a firearm, I believe this intrusive reporting requirement sets up a direct challenge to the Second Amendment rights enshrined in our Constitution, not to mention the right to privacy. Madam Chairman, we all want to see weapons kept out of the hands of criminals, but an individual's race and ethnicity has nothing to do with his ability to safely own and operate a firearm. Perhaps that is why even traditionally left-leaning groups like the ACLU have spoken in opposition to this requirement. The fact is the government should be colorblind on all of our rights, whether it is the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, or the freedom to keep and bear arms. That is why my amendment states that the government cannot require gun buyers to disclose their race and ethnicity at the point of sale. It is really that simple. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this commonsense amendment so that we can reverse this latest regulatory overreach and ensure that fairness and privacy are upheld in our Nation's gun laws. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), my lead cosponsor and an ardent defender of the Second Amendment.

Mrs. BLACK. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call #233 for passage of Rohrabacher Amendment #51, Roll Call #234 for passage of Lamborn Amendment #312, Roll Call #235 for passage of Blumenauer Amendment #246, Roll Call #236 for passage of Lucas Amendment #119, Roll Call #237 for passage of Nadler Amendment #272, Roll Call #238 for passage of the Democrat Motion to Recommit, and Roll Call #239 for final passage of H.R. 1735 which took place Friday, May 15, 2015, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted Aye on Roll Call #233, the Rohrabacher Amendment #51, on Roll Call #234, the Lamborn Amendment #312, on Roll Call #236, the Lucas Amendment #119, and on Roll Call #239 for final passage of H.R. 1735. I would have voted Nay on Roll Call #235, the Blumenauer Amendment #246, on Roll Call #237, the Nadler Amendment #272, and on Roll Call #238 against the Motion to Recommit.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I now yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, it is now my delight to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, it is my honor now to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), who is the sponsor of the bill.

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, when I became a nurse more than 40 years ago, I took a vow to ``devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care,'' but our understanding of the science limited to the extent to which I could fulfill that promise has evolved. During my first years of nursing, if a woman came into our hospital in labor at 32 weeks of pregnancy, our odds of saving her child were slim. However, today, babies are being saved as early as 22 weeks into fetal development, according to a study that was just released this past week by The New York Times. What's more, there is significant evidence that, at 20 weeks of development, unborn children have the capacity to feel pain. Sadly, while we celebrate advances in technology that prove life has value and worth before leaving the hospital, we also continue to be one of only seven nations that allow elective, late-term abortions--one of only seven nations around this world. It is difficult to imagine a more important measure of society than how it treats the most innocent and defenseless population. By condoning the destruction of unborn life that could otherwise live outside the womb, the United States tragically fails to meet this most fundamental human rights standard. Basic decency and human compassion demand that something has to change. Polls consistently show that upwards of 60 percent of Americans support putting an end to the dangerous and inhumane practice of late- term abortions. To be clear, we have a mandate to act. That is why I strongly support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act this week, which will provide Federal protection for an unborn child at 20 weeks, with exceptions to saving the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest. Today's vote coincides with the 2-year anniversary of the conviction of the evil abortionist, Kermit Gosnell, who killed babies born alive in his clinic and who is responsible for the death of an adult woman. Americans were rightfully outraged when they were told of his crimes. The truth is that innocent, unborn children routinely suffer that same fate as Gosnell's victims did through ``normal'' late-term abortions and the government does not bat an eye. The only difference between these casualties and the loss of life that resulted in Gosnell's murder conviction is the location. Madam Speaker, if we cannot appeal to my pro-abortion lawmakers' sense of compassion when it comes to this issue, then surely we can at least appeal to their senses of logic and fact. Knowing that premature babies are being saved as early as 22 weeks into fetal development, there is no legitimate reason to oppose this bill. In the year 2015, the United States has no business aborting a life that can live outside the womb. Science agrees and so do the majority of Americans. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will right this wrong. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), our majority whip.

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chair of the Pro-Life Caucus.

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, during the course of this debate, we have heard more than a few mischaracterizations against this legislation. In truth, this is just a modest, compassionate bill that does not in any way change abortion law for the first 5 months of pregnancy. As a nurse for more than 40 years, I know that late-term abortion is not health, and it is not caring. It takes an innocent life we know can feel pain inside the womb and a life that is increasingly viable outside the womb. This is a human rights issue, and we have the responsibility to act. Therefore, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 36. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Utah (Mrs. Love).

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the robust debates that we have had here today on this important issue. As I close, I would like to remind everyone, Madam Speaker, that this is legislation that has constitutional problems. We have said this over and over again since its inception, and the constitutional problems have been recognized by both the Democrats and the Republicans. There has been a lot of conversation tonight about what this bill does and does not do. This resolution is about allowing religious and political organizations to hire employees who agree with their core mission as protected by the First Amendment. It is imperative that this body adopt this resolution of disapproval to ensure the protections granted to each and every American by the First Amendment of our Constitution. As a matter of fact, folks tried to say what this resolution would do. It is a very simple resolution. It is a 1-page resolution. It has a few sentences to it, and I would like to just read those sentences. It is ``disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014.'' That is simply what it does. We have the constitutional authority to give an up-or-down vote. We are not amending. If this resolution of disapproval is adopted by this body, it simply will put back into place what is already law in the District of Columbia. It will not be taking away any rights. I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.