[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 21 (Wednesday, March 2, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 636, FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINIC 
                         ENTRANCES ACT OF 1993

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 636) to amend the Public Health 
Service Act to permit individuals to have freedom of access to certain 
medical clinics and facilities, and for other purposes, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I take 
this time to ask the gentleman why this action is necessary, since the 
House debated and passed its own version of the clinic access bill last 
year.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the request really is just to 
permit us to go to conference on the bill. When the House originally 
passed the bill last session, it was our hope that we would not need a 
conference at all. Subsequent events have led us to the point where a 
conference is necessary to resolve it. There are some differences in 
the two bills that we can resolve in a conference without further 
debate.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. 
Speaker, since the House acted last session on the clinic access bill, 
the Supreme Court rendered a unanimous decision that subjects people 
who protest in front of abortion clinics to treble damages under the 
law. Since both the Senate version and the House version of this bill 
create a new Federal cause of action civilly with treble damages, as 
well as subject these people to Federal criminal penalties, does not 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] feel that the combination of 
these three types of penalties is a bit of an overkill?
  Mr. BROOKS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, sometimes it 
depends on who they are killing, whether it is doctors or patients, but 
we can resolve the differences, I believe, between them.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. 
Speaker, I think there are adequate State and Federal laws to take care 
of those who are killing doctors and patients, so the concern that many 
of us have expressed on this is, this has a chilling effect on first 
amendment rights to those who take one particular side on one 
particular issue.
  Mr. BROOKS. Will the gentleman yield on that question?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield on that question.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, to my friend I would say that he recalls the 
difficulties. The testimony reflected in the hearings was that in some 
areas, where there is controversy about this issue, sometimes the 
officials in that area were not as industrious as they might have been 
in enforcing the local law which would have prevented it, but they 
allowed it pretty much tacitly to happen, and that is what we are 
trying to avoid.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. 
Speaker, it appears that the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, my distinguished friend, is enunciating the Democratic crime 
package so far just aimed at people who protest in front of abortion 
clinics.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be the last one to want to stand in the way at 
this time of advancing this Democratic crime package, so I withdraw my 
reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________