Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I end this debate by reiterating the point I made at the beginning. This legislation would do nothing to enhance protections or the quality of healthcare if an infant is born after an attempted abortion. 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 circumstances of its birth. The other side has referred several times to the case of Dr. Gosnell. Dr. Gosnell is now in jail under a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, plus 30 years, convicted of first-degree murder without this bill, because it is already against the law not to give proper care or, God forbid, to murder a baby born alive. 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 newborn to a hospital, regardless of the medical or other circumstances, it would place the lives and health of some newborn infants at risk. The bill directly interferes with a doctor's medical judgment and dictates a particular course of action that may be harmful to the newborn in the particular circumstances. That is why a coalition of 13 healthcare provider groups, joined by a coalition of 25 additional health, civil rights, and women's rights groups, strongly opposes this bill. As the providers note, the bill wrongly ``injects politicians into the patient-physician relationship, disregarding providers' training and clinical judgment and undermining their ability to determine the best course of action with their patients.'' 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. That decision guarantees the right of a woman to choose an 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 its birth, must be cared for in the best possible medical way, and, of course, deliberately killing it would be first-degree murder. This bill does not change this, 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 healthcare professionals, we should respect their judgment, and the House must reject this seriously flawed bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire if the other side is ready to close?

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin).

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), a former member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the ranking Democrat on the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera).

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, any responsible effort to authorize section 702 must pass three tests: It must include a meaningful warrant requirement; It must end the ``abouts'' collection until Congress says otherwise; and It must not restrict the government's ability to collect intelligence on valid targets operating outside of the United States. The underlying bill does not include a meaningful warrant requirement, and it does not end ``abouts'' collection. The Amash-Lofgren amendment, on the other hand, passes all three tests: It includes a warrant agreement that comports with the Fourth Amendment; It puts an end to ``abouts'' collection; and It leaves the core functionality of section 702 perfectly intact. It would be harder to use this authority to spy on United States citizens, but the government's ability to gather intelligence on suspected terrorists and others overseas will not be affected. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and make a meaningful change to section 702. Mr. Speaker, I thank the many sponsors of this amendment for their leadership in this important fight.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.