[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 30 (Thursday, March 17, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 636, FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINIC 
        ENTRANCES ACT OF 1993, AND MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE H.R. 796

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 374 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 374

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the 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 to 
     consider the Senate bill in the House. All points of order 
     against the Senate bill and against its consideration are 
     waived. It shall be in order to move to strike all after the 
     enacting clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu 
     thereof the provisions of H.R. 796 as passed by the House. 
     All points of order against that motion are waived. If the 
     motion is adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, 
     then it shall be in order to move that the House insist on 
     its amendments to S. 636 and request a conference with the 
     Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Moakley], is 
recognized for one hour.
  (Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes of debate 
time to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen]. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson], and ask unanimous consent that he be 
allowed to manage the time.
  The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 374 is a rule providing for the 
procedure to go to conference on S. 636 and H.R. 796, the Senate- and 
House-passed versions of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act 
of 1993.
  The rule makes it in order to take the Senate bill, S. 636, from the 
Speaker's table and consider it in the House. All points of order 
against the Senate bill and its consideration are waived.
  The rule also makes in order a motion to strike out all after the 
enacting clause of the Senate bill and insert the provisions of H.R. 
796 as passed by the House. All points of order against that motion are 
waived.
  Finally, if the motion is adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is 
passed, the rule makes in order a motion to insist on the House 
amendment and request a conference.
  Mr. Speaker, the House fully considered and passed its version of the 
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act on November 18, 1993. At that 
time it was hoped that the House and Senate could agree on a bill to 
send to the President without a formal conference. Therefore at that 
time, a motion to go to conference was not offered. This rule simply 
allows the House to take the needed procedural steps to begin a formal 
conference with the Senate on this important bill.
  The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act was developed in 
response to the growing problem of orchestrated violence at 
reproductive health clinics all across the Nation.
  While State and local law enforcement have the authority to police 
such violations of their criminal codes, in reality this often does not 
happen. In some cases, the locality does not have the resources to 
battle large-scale, long-term operations, including trespass, vandalism 
and assault. In other cases, they simply choose not to do so. Clearly, 
a Federal remedy is the only answer if we are to standardize law 
enforcement and ensure that all women have equal access to 
Constitutionally-protected health services.
  I urge my colleagues to move forward this important legislation by 
supporting this rule and sending this measure to conference with the 
Senate.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Beilenson, has explained, this rule provides for the consideration of 
S. 636, the Senate-passed version of the Freedom of Access to Clinic 
Entrances Act.
  The rule makes in order motions to consider the Senate bill, to 
substitute the text of the House-passed version, H.R. 796, to pass the 
amended bill, to insist on the amendments and to request a conference. 
All points of order are waived against S. 636 and its consideration, as 
well as the motion to amend the bill.
  Now, that may seem simple enough, but let me describe the potential 
debate and votes that this rule would allow. First, we have up to 1 
hour of debate on the rule, a possible vote on the previous question 
and a vote on adoption of the rule.
  Then we have up to 1 hour of debate on the Senate bill. There could 
be a vote on the motion to strike the text of S. 636 and insert the 
language of H.R. 796 as passed by the House. That might be followed by 
a vote on the motion to commit the Senate bill to the appropriate House 
committee. Then there could be a vote on passage of the Senate bill as 
amended.
  There is still more, Mr. Speaker. After passage, we have up to 1 hour 
of debate on the motion to go to conference, followed by a possible 
vote on that motion. And finally, we have up to 1 hour of debate on the 
motion to instruct conferees to agree to the Hatch amendment providing 
protection to places of worship. I strongly support the Hatch 
amendment, and there may be a vote on the motion to instruct conferees. 
I hope my explanation clears up any existing questions or confusion 
about this rule, and I am strongly opposed to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not condone violence as a means to 
achieve any goal, but I feel strongly that existing state and local 
laws adequately address violent activity, whether it be at an abortion 
clinic or anywhere else. This bill could infringe upon an individual's 
first amendment rights of free speech and the right to peacefully 
assemble.
  I was opposed to this measure when it was before the House last 
November, and I intend to vote against it this time. However, this rule 
allows us to move forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me and am proud to address the House today as the sponsor of this 
bill.
  Let me say first what the bill is and what the bill is not.
  What the bill is is very simple. It says that the extreme few who 
choose not by peaceful protest, not by arguments and persuasion but, 
rather, by physical blockade or physical violence to prevent people 
from getting their constitutional right to choose should be stopped by 
the Federal Government.
  It says that because there are localities that are either unwilling, 
because the law enforcement officer is very strongly pro-life, or 
unable, like Dobbs Ferry, where there is a small police force and 
thousands and thousands of blockaders, to enforce that Federal right, 
that the Federal Government will come in, very similar to what happened 
in the early 1960's in the civil rights days where just the same, there 
were local officials who refused to enforce Federal rights such as 
Brown versus Board of Education. And as a result, the Federal 
Government had to come in.
  In fact, if we were not to pass this legislation, we would say that 
federal rights mean very little, when States are unwilling or unable to 
enforce them.
  FACE will guarantee the right of everyone. This is the third thing 
that it is. It is evenhanded. It does not just protect the right to 
choose for those who wish to seek access to abortion services. It 
protects the rights of those who seek to counsel against abortion so 
that if pro-choice people were blockading a place that was trying to 
dissuade women from having abortions, the Federal Government could come 
in with equal force and say, ``You cannot do that.''
  Now, let us talk about what the bill is not. Most of those who oppose 
the bill, I would argue, are making a mistake. They are lumping 
themselves, Members of deep moral conviction, conviction I disagree 
with, but of deep moral conviction along with those who feel that their 
morality is so great they have the right to make decisions for 
everybody else, not through the democratic process but by use of force. 
But they lump themselves with them because this bill, and this is our 
most important, does nothing, nothing to interfere with the right of 
peaceful protest. And that is clear.
  The Bishop in my jurisdiction, whom I know and respect, prays the 
Rosary outside an abortion clinic every month. If this bill were to 
impede his right or the right of any other, I would rather not see it 
pass. The right of first amendment protest is that sacred to me and 
many other leaders in this bill.

  That is why we have written in the bill, even though the language is 
written just like the Voting Rights Act statute and other statutes and 
has never once by a court, not once been interpreted to allow peaceful 
protest to fall under the ambit of this law, but we wrote explicitly 
rule (d).
  Let me read it to my colleagues:

       Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any 
     expressive conduct, including peaceful picketing or other 
     peaceful demonstration protected from legal prohibition by 
     the First Article of the Amendment of the Constitution.

  It is there in black and white, my colleagues. Nothing, not a few 
things, not an occasional thing, nothing shall interfere with the right 
to peaceful protest.
  So I would say to my colleagues, this bill does things we need, 
enforce a Federal right against a small few who think they are so 
morally superior to everyone else that they have a right to blockade. 
Yes, others have believed in peaceful protest. Others have even 
believed in blockading. But they understood that the consequence of 
that was arrest, an arrest for what they have done.
  Not the protestors of today. These people want to blockade and then 
not accept the punishment that the laws of passive resistance, that the 
arguments of passive resistance have always accepted.
  In conclusion, it protects a federal right without taking away a 
single Federal right. It is not a pro-choice or a pro-life bill. It is 
very simply a bill that says, when the Supreme Court, as they have done 
throughout our history, guarantees a right is constitutional, the 
Federal Government has an imperative to come in and protect that right.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
  (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today we are voting on what amounts 
to a closed rule on a very sensitive bill.
  Mr. Speaker, if we listened closely to the explanation given both by 
the gentleman from California, Mr. Beilenson, and the gentleman from 
Tennessee, Mr. Quillen, we will have heard that the Senate bill is 
brought up without an amendment, a motion to substitute the House-
passed text is in order, and then the bill will be engrossed, read a 
third time, passed, and sent to conference.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a highly unusual procedure, but it is even 
worse, given the context of what has happened since the House debated 
this subject last year. Since House passage of H.R. 796, the Supreme 
Court of the United States has made the RICO law applicable to 
protesters in front of abortion clinics by an unanimous vote. the 
application of RICO law means that these people if found that they have 
engaged in unlawful activity by a jury, are subject to treble Federal 
damages. That means three times the actual damages.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, the jury in Florida, after a very short 
deliberation, convicted the man who was accused of killing Dr. Gunn in 
front of his abortion clinic in Pensacola, FL. That shows clearly that 
State and local law does work, was applicable, and will be applied to 
those who commit acts of violence against people who are in the 
abortion business.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not need to have a whole panoply of duplications 
passed in the context of this bill. People who violate the law in front 
of abortion clinics are subject to the full range of State and Federal 
criminal law, which includes potential prosecutions for murder, for 
battery, for arson, as well as State prosecutions for disorderly 
conduct.
  Federal civil rights statutes would also apply if people's civil 
rights are being infringed upon. In addition, there are several civil 
causes of action, including the Federal RICO statute, that would apply 
as well.
  Mr. Speaker, what the proponents of this legislation are proposing to 
do is to subject these people, in addition to all of the penalties that 
I have just described, to a Federal criminal penalty, many of which are 
felony penalties, as well as a new Federal cause of action with treble 
damages in addition to the treble damages in RICO.
  Mr. Speaker, is that not overkill? Do we not want to erect a scaffold 
in front of the Capitol and have public executions once a week of 
people who are expressing their profound moral and religious opposition 
against abortion?
  Mr. Speaker, I think this shows the danger of having what amounts to 
legislation designed to put the full force of Federal law against 
people who are demonstrating on one side of one issue. Despite what the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Schumer, has to say, that is who this bill 
is directed against.
  Second, this type of legislation would have been the darling in 
southern State legislatures 30 years ago by people who wanted to put a 
stop to the civil rights movement, or those 25 years ago who wanted to 
stop the protests against the war in Vietnam. All we need to do is to 
substitute another issue for protests in front of reproductive services 
clinics, and this type of legislation could be used against that.
  This type of legislation, if it was passed back in the 1960's, would 
have put Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King out of business, and our 
country would have been much worse as a result of that type of 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say, do not follow the prophets of political 
correctness who are in favor of this bill. It is an assault on first 
amendment rights. It does trample upon the time-honored American 
tradition of protest, and those who step over the bounds of lawful 
activity and commit acts of violence can and have been prosecuted for 
existing laws that are on the books. The best way to stop this bill is 
to vote down the rule, and I urge a no vote on this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a simple housekeeping procedure to get to 
conference. It is not an unusual device or a closed rule. We have 
considered rules to hook-up with a Senate bill and go to conference 19 
times in the 102d Congress and several times already in this Congress, 
as recently as last month on the Independent Counsel bill.
  Mr. Speaker, For purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Schenk].
  (Ms. SCHENK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, legislation to punish those who block a woman's access 
to health clinics is extremely important to me and residents of my San 
Diego district. At stake is a woman's right to enjoy safe access to 
family planning services.
  One year ago, five San Diego clinics were sprayed with butyric acid, 
a dangerous toxin that can injure the respiratory tract and burn the 
skin.
  They were not isolated attacks. In 1992, over 1,100 acts of serious 
violence against abortion providers were reported to the California 
Abortion Rights Action League. And we can never forget the brutal 
murder of Doctor David Gunn outside a Florida clinic.
  Despite the violence in San Diego, the FBI refused to investigate the 
attacks on the ground that current law does not authorize their 
intervention.
  A Federal law is overdue. We cannot remain silent while such 
terrorism runs rampant. I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule so we 
can proceed to conference on this bill, so important to the women of 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say a word to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Sensenbrenner] on RICO. The truth is that RICO is not available 
for this kind of protection. RICO punishes only the leaders of formal 
interstate criminal enterprises who engage in a pattern of racketeering 
which involves at least two felonies. So most of the criminals who 
commit clinic violence will fall through RICO's cracks.
  Mr. Speaker, there is real world proof that NOW versus Scheidler will 
not stop clinic violence. In the 2 months since the decision cited by 
the gentleman, there have been over 230 acts and threats of violence, 
including 19 acts of vandalism and 11 death and bomb threats.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule so we can proceed to the 
conference on this very important bill.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule which will 
allow us to consider a motion to go to conference on the freedom of 
access to clinic entrances bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule because the bill 
itself H.R. 796, is just so terribly bad. This bill really has got to 
be stopped.
  People have a right to an opinion on abortion. People have a right to 
oppose abortion. I know it is not politically correct, but we have that 
right.
  Accompanying that right is the right to organize peacefully. This 
bill seriously damages that right. This bill slashes the first 
amendment to ribbons for one single group--people who oppose abortion.
  Yes, we should punish violence. Yes, we should punish threats of 
violence. But this bill goes beyond that. It would punish people 
engaged in nonviolent, free speech, which is perfectly lawful.
  As I mentioned last year when this face was debated in this body, 
this bill comes close to home for me. My wife and two of my daughters 
and one of my sons-in-law are deeply involved in ``Operation Rescue.'' 
Not one of them poses any kind of threat of violence whatsoever. They 
truly are peaceful people. They just have strong feelings about the 
issue of abortion. And they are dedicating their lives to bringing and 
end to abortion. And that is not a crime--it should not be a crime.
  My wife Mary, my daughters Bridget and Joan, and their children, 
should have the same right to express their beliefs as any other 
citizen who is willing to take a stand on an issue that is important to 
them. They should not be made Federal criminals because of the 
motivation or the beliefs behind their actions.
  I ask my colleagues who supported this bill last year, to rethink 
their position on H.R. 796. Please do not allow this bill to go 
forward.
  It is a blatant violation of one of the rights secured by the first 
amendment because it punishes people not for a crime--but for their 
viewpoint.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule so that we can stop 
this bad piece of legislation.

                              {time}  1720

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Freedom of 
Access to Clinic Entrances Act. This bill is long overdue, and I am 
pleased that today we can move one step closer to its enactment.
  The necessity is real. Radical pro-life groups will continue to 
encourage and inspire violence until this legislation is passed. 
Congress must make the safety of physicians and women around the 
country a top priority.
  I have no doubt there is a national conspiracy to deprive women of 
their right to basic health care. The facts speak for themselves and 
are the best argument for the bill's passage:
  In one survey, 50 percent of clinics experienced severe antiabortion 
violence this year. These violent acts include death threats, stalking, 
chemical attacks, arson, bomb threats, invasions, and blockades.
  The National Abortion Federation reports that the number of violent 
incidents has more than tripled in the last 2 years.
  And the longer we wait to pass Federal remedies, extremists are 
developing new, more insidious ways to attack clinics and to ensure 
that women do not receive vital services. Last year we saw a 
frightening use of noxious chemicals to close clinics and harm clinic 
personnel.
  No women should have to run a gauntlet of harrassment and violence to 
receive basic health care--no doctor should have to wear a bullet-proof 
vest to treat patients.
  Do not be deterred by those who say the recent RICO decision makes 
FACE unnecessary. Nothing could be further from the truth. We need 
strong Federal penalties for those who would jeopardize women's health.
  Let us not forget that these clinics do more than provide abortion 
services. They provide family planning services, pre-natal care, and 
even adoption services. Earlier this year, the Blue Mountain Clinic in 
Montana was destroyed by arson. It had provided prenatal care and 
delivery, childhood immunizations, and contraceptive services.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to send this bill to conference.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to 
the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
  As this bill now stands, American men and women who believe deeply in 
the right to life of all people, born and unborn, could be subject to 
harsh penalties merely for exercising their constitutional right of 
free speech.
  While this bill seeks to address the growing problem of violence at 
abortion clinics it violates the first amendment rights of those who 
wish to prayerfully offer an alternative to the violence of abortion. 
There is no distinction made between violent and nonviolent protest. 
Indeed, this bill subjects violators to severe penalties, up to 1 year 
in jail and up to $100,000 in fines for the first offense.
  Should a young mother with her children peacefully passing out 
literature on a public sidewalk be subject to the same harsh penalties 
as someone who sets fire to a clinic. I think not.
  Our country has an enduring history of peaceful protest. Let us not 
pass a bill in this House that would cause us to amend the Constitution 
so it reads ``freedom of speech is fine unless you oppose abortion.'' I 
would like to assure my colleague, Mr. Schumer, I do not consider 
myself morally superior to anyone else--I do, however, oppose this 
bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  (Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, this country is founded on first 
amendment rights which guarantee freedom of speech and peaceful 
assembly. I have always worked to protect those rights and will always 
fight for these constitutional protections.
  But Americans have another fundamental right as well--the right to 
live without fear of intimidation and bodily harm. The Freedom of 
Access to Clinic Entrance Act upholds first amendment rights while 
protecting Americans who are working in a field which is legal, but 
controversial.
  This bill protects men and women who might be the victims of 
intimidation and violence, and whose families can be subject to serious 
threats. It ensures that women who wish to go to these clinics for 
medical services will not have their paths physically blocked, and 
provides that they will be able to enter these facilities safely.
  The bill establishes penalties for violence and acts of coercion that 
go far beyond peaceful demonstrations. This bill does not address or 
threaten the right of peaceful demonstration. It sends a firm message 
that violence and intimidation will not be tolerated.
  This bill is sorely needed because clinic violence is on the rise. 
During the past 10 years, more than 1,000 incidents of violence and 
almost 500 blockades have occurred against reproductive health clinics.
  According to a recent survey, more than one-half of the health care 
providers in the study had experienced violence last year alone--in the 
form of death threats, stalkings, chemical attacks, arson, bomb threats 
and blockades.
  These crimes of death threats and chemical attacks do not constitute 
civil disobedience. They amount to vigilantism and they cannot be 
tolerated.
  Last year we passed this bill. Now we are trying to send it to 
conference. This should not be controversial. There will be plenty of 
opportunity to vote on the merits of the conference report when it 
comes back. We should quickly send this bill on its way so the 
conference may begin its work. Let us not delay or stall, but get on 
with business.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 796 and S. 636 were drafted in 
response to a nationally orchestrated campaign of violence and 
vandalism against reproductive health clinics, as well as physical 
blockades and invasions of clinics. These illegal activities have been 
preventing women from obtaining health care services, and threatening 
the lives of health care providers.
  From 1977 to March 1994, more than 1,587 acts of violence against 
reproductive health providers were reported in the United States, 
including 37 bombings, 87 arsons, 175 death threats, 91 assaults, 2 
kidnapings, 345 clinic invasions, and 1 murder. From January 1992 to 
date, 79 chemical attacks were reported in 17 States as well, with 
damages totaling $560,000. And in a nationwide survey in 1993, 50 
percent of the clinics responding reported experience extreme 
violence--with 25 percent of those clinics having experienced physical 
invasions or chemical attacks in 1993 alone.
  The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is also in response to 
last January's Supreme Court ruling in Bray versus Alexandria which 
created a gap in Federal law. Federal injunctive relief is no 
longer available for clinics under Federal civil rights laws.

  Since the NOW versus Scheidler case--2 months--there have been over 
230 acts and threats of violence, including 19 acts of vandalism and 11 
death and bomb threats.
  H.R. 796 and S. 636 will give the Federal Government the power to act 
when State and local authorities cannot or will not act to guarantee 
access to these clinics where women, especially poor women, go for a 
wide range of services that include birth control, prenatal 
examinations, mammograms, pap smears, as well as abortion services.
  The bill applies only to the use of force, threat of force, or 
physical obstruction that intentionally injures, intimidates, or 
interferes with any person who is obtaining or providing reproductive 
health services.
  The bill protects all expressive conduct, including peaceful 
picketing or other peaceful demonstration, protected by the first 
amendment. We are talking about illegal conduct, not peaceful 
picketing.
  The bill has been very carefully crafted to protect first amendment 
rights, and has been narrowly drawn to specifically address this 
problem, without providing too broad a Federal role. Changes were made 
in the subcommittee, full committee, and the House Floor in an effort 
to further clarify and improve the bill.
  Some Members are arguing today that the RICO decision makes passage 
of FACE unnecessary. This is simply not the case.
  Under RICO, it is illegal for any individual who is employed by, or 
associated with, an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce, to 
conduct or participate in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs 
through a pattern of racketeering activity. Racketeering activity is 
defined to mean any act or threat involving specified State law crimes, 
such as murder or gambling or any act indictable under various 
specified Federal statues. A pattern of racketeering activity requires 
at least two acts--for example, kidnapping and bribery.
  Although RICO contains severe penalties, it will not end the war 
being waged against abortion clinics. As a general statute containing 
many complex requirements, it was not written for use against this type 
of unlawful conduct. The ACLU has concerns about the use of RICO 
because of its potential chilling effects on first amendment rights. In 
contrast, FACE, by permitting peaceful protests and penalizing only 
violence, carefully and specifically protects first amendment rights.

  FACE remains an urgent priority for the following reasons:
  FACE was drafted to combat specific crimes occurring at reproductive 
health clinics. Although RICO's definition of racketeering activity 
lists certain crimes, including murder, arson, and extortion, other 
common criminal activity occurring at abortion facilities such as 
assault, destruction of property, acid attacks, and physical 
obstruction are not mentioned in the statute. A judge could not 
consider these types of crimes as part of the two criminal acts 
necessary to establish a RICO claim.
  FACE could be invoked in a timely manner. FACE allows a plaintiff--
such as a patient or provider--to obtain injunctive relief before a 
particular assault takes place and provides civil and criminal 
penalties immediately after a violation occurs. RICO requires that two 
requisite criminal acts have occurred and that a pattern of unlawful 
activity has been established prior to invocation of the RICO statute. 
Moreover, only the Government--and not individual plaintiffs--can 
obtain injunctive relief under RICO.
  FACE would deter all who participate in these types of unlawful 
activities while RICO only punishes the anti-choice leadership. FACE 
responds to a nationwide campaign of terror against those who perform 
or seek to obtain abortions by punishing anyone who ``by force, threat 
of force, or physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates, 
or interferes'' with a person obtaining or providing reproductive 
health service. RICO only punishes those individuals who played a 
significant role in the ``operation and management'' of a criminal 
enterprise. Followers who participate but do not direct or organize 
these types of anti-choice activities would not be punished or deterred 
by RICO.
  FACE would provide meaningful civil damage recovery. FACE allows 
individuals who were personally injured in their attempts to enter 
clinics in order to provide or obtain reproductive health services to 
win civil damages. Plaintiffs could choose $5,000 per violation in lieu 
of actual injury. Alternatively, FACE could compensate individuals for 
specific damages, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, and 
emotional distress. RICO limits a plaintiff's recovery to injury to 
business or property.
  FACE would permit the Federal Government to take an active role in 
ending attacks against abortion clinics. Without enactment of FACE, the 
Attorney General cannot deploy Federal marshals to assist local police 
to keep clinics open.
  Despite NOW's victory in its case, the RICO statute cannot by itself 
stop the unlawful activity of the antichoice groups. FACE was carefully 
crafted and narrowly tailored to address a specific national problem.
  FACE is a necessary, appropriate, and reasonable response to this 
ongoing emergency. I urge my colleagues to support the procedural steps 
necessary to bring this bill to conference, and I urge you to vote 
``no'' on any motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey, [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the gross unfairness and blatant injustice of H.R. 796 
demands now more than ever that Members carefully study and scrutinize 
this legislation. I implore you to more fully appreciate and to take a 
look at what the consequences will be if it is enacted in its current 
form.
  I truly believe that the harsh, mean-spirited punishments prescribed 
by the bill for acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, the staple of 
the human rights and civil rights movements, parallel those sweeping, 
draconian edicts used to bludgeon dissent in dictatorships.
  Just getting in the way, I say to my colleagues, and get this, just 
attempting to get in the way at an abortion clinic will result, first, 
in 1-, and then, second, if you do it again, a 3-year jail term, 
massive fines up to a quarter of a million dollars per offense and 
punitive damages by the party that feels it has been offended. This 
kind of abuse of police power, Mr. Speaker, will surely bring smiles to 
the faces of people like Li Pong and Fidel Castro and Vladimir 
Zhirinovsky. This is their kind of bill. It talks about focusing on 
violence. Members will recall that my substitute likewise focused on 
violence. That is where the consensus is. This bill goes after the 
nonviolent civil disobedient person who does not use violence but, 
simply for reasons of deep-seated conviction, stands up and says, 
``Please don't go in that clinic,'' or holds a sign or prays the Rosary 
or expresses himself or herself in some way, in a nonviolent way.
  Mr. Speaker, just let me read from the bill so that Members have a 
clear understanding of what we are talking about.
  Lay aside the violent side because I believe that we can craft a bill 
with both sides agreeing to go after those, on either side of this 
debate, who are promoting violence, that is to say the fanatics on both 
sides. Here is all that is required under H.R. 796 to turn a peaceful, 
nonviolent protester into a Federal felon; in other words, this person 
would get again a massive jail term.
  ``Whoever, by physical obstruction, interferes with any person or 
attempts to do so because that person or any other class of persons is 
obtaining or providing reproductive health services, shall be punished 
in the case of the first offense up to $10,000 or imprisoned not more 
than 1 year or both, and in the case of the second subsequent offense 
after a prior conviction, to be fined up to $250,000 or imprisoned not 
more than 3 years or both.''
  So, under the facade of getting tough on those few fanatics that bomb 
abortion mills or use violence, actions that I parenthetically that my 
substitute went after that last time, got tough on violent protesters--
the House is poised to stack the deck against peaceful pro-life 
activists so as to make them prey, an easy mark for ruinous prosecution 
and civil suits.
  H.R. 796 maliciously turns the Federal law enforcement agents into a 
bunch of johnny-rent-a-cops for the multimillion-dollar abortion 
industry. By improperly using finite Federal law enforcement assets to 
crush women and men peacefully holding hands outside of an abortion 
mill is irresponsible, it is mean-spirited, and it is cruel.
  As you well know, Mr. Speaker, nonviolent civil disobedience has been 
used by a myriad of causes and movements over the years, right to this 
day, including civil rights, environmentalism, D.C. statehood, women's 
rights, anti-apartheid, labor rights, antiwar and anti-nukes ads and 
abortion both pro and con.
  Under the pending legislation, the pro-life nonviolent activists 
would be singled out and turned into felons.
  Again, the abortion industry is demanding a massive crackdown on 
those who sing hymns and pray, who cry for and empathize with the pain 
of the mothers and the loss of the child and picket, sit outside those 
sacrosanct baby-killing mills.
  H.R. 796, Mr. Speaker, discriminates against pro-life Americans by 
turning action based on a specific viewpoint on abortion into a felony. 
To get a taste of just how double-standardish this provision is, 
consider this: If picketers physically obstruct access to an abortion 
mill, nonviolently, in order to obtain higher wages or benefits and 
other clinic personnel or patients find it difficult to pass, those 
picketers could only be charged with a misdemeanor. The local ordinance 
would have sway.
  On the other hand, if pro-life picketers behave in the identical way, 
identical, and make egress or ingress to the clinic difficult, the pro-
life picketers could be charged with having committed a felony with a 
penalty of up to 3 years in prison for that second offense.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman from New Jersey just say that the 
level of penalty depends upon the content of the sign? Meaning if you 
are waving a sign that says ``On strike for higher wages,'' and stand 
in front of the door, that is just a misdemeanor? But if the sign on 
the other hand says, ``Don't kill your baby,'' that is a felony?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The gentleman is absolutely correct. If a 
man or woman is in front of an abortion clinic and is there protesting, 
asking for higher wages or higher benefits or some other problem they 
have with their employer, if they commit an act that is punishable 
perhaps by a day in jail or whatever, that is all they would be hit 
with.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Whatever happened to equal protection under the 
law? This seems to be so content-specific that people do not have equal 
protection under the law and are subjected to varying degrees of 
criminal punishment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The gentleman is absolutely correct again, 
there is no equal justice under this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton.
  (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, as debate opened, you heard a rundown of possible 
procedural obstruction devices that may be employed during this debate. 
My friends who express pro-life sentiments need the opportunity this 
bill provides to disassociate themselves from the small but determined 
and often effective band of storm trooper-like extremists who are 
discrediting their movement.
  In the South, as a student, I participated in many civil rights 
demonstrations. We were from various tendencies, some of us more 
militant than the others. I considered myself as a student from the 
most militant tendency in the movement. If someone by this time in the 
year, let us say, 1963, when I was in law school, had told me that 
civil rights demonstrators, before the entrances of our declared 
enemies, the racists, had committed 33 violent incidents, including 8 
arsons, 1 bombing, 15 incidents of vandalism and assault, we, the 
Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, would have stood up and 
looked for the nearest microphone so that we could have disassociated 
ourselves from those incidents, because we knew that those incidents, 
that violence discredited our movement, and we loved our movement too 
much to embrace those who departed from nonviolence.
  I spent my career, at least the early part of my career, as a 
constitutional lawyer. I was assistant legal director of the American 
Civil Liberties Union. And I have not supported this bill until now. I 
can support this bill because of the explicit disclaimer of coverage 
for any expressive conduct. I could not support it otherwise, and I 
submit to you that the fact that I have represented in the name of the 
First Amendment racists and fascists is some indication that even for 
choice I could not support this bill if it were an attack on the First 
Amendment, which is all we have in order to protest to get our full 
rights.

                              {time}  1740

  I can support this bill because it applies to force. These are the 
words that are used: ``Threat of force,'' ``physical obstruction,'' 
``intentional injury,'' and it is interesting to note that the ACLU 
itself now supports this bill.
  Even so, I could not easily support a bill which seems to federalize 
criminal law because that is usually a local matter. But I can support 
this law because local law is not preempted. I can support this law 
because of the overwhelming evidence that many localities cannot, or 
will not, enforce their own laws against violence. Some smaller towns 
have exhausted their police budgets.
  Look at my city. The District of Columbia crime rate is out of 
control. Would any Member of Congress want even one officer distracted 
from the serious crime in this city to pull demonstrators out of the 
front of some clinic? Let me tell my colleagues what the police in 
Washington had to do in January 1992, and see if they would like to 
associate themselves with these incidents. Operation Rescue had come to 
the Hillcrest Center in Southeast Washington. Every entrance was 
obstructed by antichoice demonstrators. The driveway was blocked with a 
dumpster. The front door was blocked by antichoice protestors who had 
locked their arms through hollow steel pipes welded to railroad ties 
wedged against the door, and both the rear and side doors were blocked 
by cars with flattened tires. Inside each car several demonstrators 
chained and handcuffed themselves to the same type of steel pipe and 
tie contraption. Hours later, hours of our police time, the police 
finally removed all the obstructions. The doors themselves could not be 
opened because the locks had been filled with glue.
  I ask my colleagues, ``Do you, my friends, associate yourselves with 
that?''
  Finally, the Supreme Court has found that the Ku Klux Klan statute 
does not apply to women because we were not a protected class then. So, 
if these very things were done to black Americans, the things I have 
just quoted, they would be illegal today.
  We cannot have a situation where this kind of violence cannot be 
condoned if done against me because I am black, but can be condoned if 
done against my sisters who are white.
  The Senate and the House have done their will. Obstruction against 
the democratic will will be wrong, as it always is. It is especially 
wrong, my colleagues, when with one voice, one voice from this Chamber, 
we need to say ``no'' to violence in all its forms.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Let us be 
clear about what we are doing in the House today. By voting to go to 
conference on the freedom of access to clinics bill, we are saying that 
our present legal statutes are not sufficient to deliver justice to the 
American people, and I say to my colleagues with all the rhetoric 
aside, and the talk about violence and, ``If you vote against this 
bill, you're for violence,'' this just is not so.
  I think my colleagues really need to look at this bill. Look at the 
murder trial over the abortion doctor, Dr. David Gunn. Justice has been 
served. Dr. Gunn's murderer was convicted of first degree murder and 
sentenced to life in prison on March 5 of this very year. Nevertheless, 
Mr. Speaker, this murder has served as the impetus for a whole new 
course of action against people who are primarily law abiding, 
nonviolent protestors.
  Dr. Gunn's murderer was not a prolifer. He proved that the minute he 
pulled the trigger. But it is my strong belief that people who commit 
violent acts should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 
This bill simply extends beyond that stated purpose.
  We do not need another bill to protect people seeking abortions. They 
are already protected under current law. There is not one outrageous 
horror story described here today that we do not have a law already to 
take care of those situations. What this bill really does is to single 
out the free speech of one particular group of people exercising their 
constitutional rights, and we all know that, and in talking to my 
colleagues in the last few days I found that many of them do not even 
realize what this bill does.
  Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleagues to look very carefully at 
the substance of this bill. If they look behind the rhetoric, Mr. 
Speaker, they will find a whole new course of action that supersedes 
current statutes. This bill is one more attempt by Planned Parenthood 
and their friends to exalt their glorified notion of choice at the 
expense of human lives, to preempt State laws that protect the unborn 
and restrict the freedom of speech to those who think differently.
  I say to my colleagues, if you look at this bill, you would think you 
were in Nicaragua during the time of the Sandinistas. It absolutely 
amazes me how they screw down in trying to stop people from being able 
to exercise their freedom of speech, and, like the recent Supreme Court 
ruling on the interpretation of RICO, the Freedom of Access to Clinic 
Entrances bill will severely impinge upon First Amendment rights of the 
American people.
  We take freedom so lightly in this country. Please vote this rule 
down, and let us go home and send this back to the drawing board to 
work something out.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Coppersmith].
  (Mr. COPPERSMITH asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. COPPERSMITH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York 
[Ms. Slaughter] for yielding this time to me, and I rise in support of 
this rule and in support of the motion to go to conference.
  This afternoon and this evening we will have a remarkable and 
unprecedented series of procedural votes on items usually agreed to 
easily and quickly, in an attempt to derail a vitally needed bill that 
already has passed this House by voice vote.
  Now let us talk about the substance of the bill. This bill does not 
prevent anyone from exercising their first amendment rights. Nothing in 
the Act will prohibit any expressive conduct, including peaceful 
picketing or other peaceful demonstration, protected by the first 
amendment. It says so explicitly in the act. Comparisons to the civil 
rights movement are, in the words of USA Today, ``grotesque rhetorical 
gargle'' and ``outrageous''.
  This bill is also not about the first amendment, nor about political 
correctness. It is about fighting domestic terrorism. Shootings, arson, 
vandalism, firebombings and chemical attacks are not the tools of civil 
opposition nor even civil disobedience. State and local governments 
have not been able to protect our citizens, and if our citizens cannot 
live without fear of bodily harm, without fear of violence and 
intimidation while they exercise their rights, whether in earning a 
legal living or in exercising their right to choose, then Federal 
action becomes necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I attended a lunch that honored former 
U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater. My colleagues may recall him. He was 
known in his time as Mr. Conservative, but now people apparently can 
call themselves conservative only if they disagree with Barry. The 
speaker at the lunch was Dr. Susan Wicklund, a medical doctor who has 
spent her career providing reproductive health services to women in 
Montana and North Dakota. She spoke eloquently and movingly about the 
threats, the terror and the vandalism directed against her, her 
patients and, most chillingly, her children. No one who heard Dr. 
Wicklund speak about the immoral and dangerous bullying directed 
against her and her patients could deny the need for this legislation. 
No one who heard her story could understand how this House could refuse 
to allow this bill to move to a conference committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to turn back these bizarre 
parliamentary maneuvers by the ``gridlock gang''. This House must move 
to conference on this necessary and vital legislation.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. It would 
appear that many Members of this House are unaware that murder, 
assault, vandalism and trespassing are presently illegal.
  I bring this up because we have a bill whose advocates insist will 
provide for the safety of those that patronize abortion clinics.
  No one is fooled by the real intent of this bill. The Freedom of 
Access to Clinic Entrances Act seeks to strip those who are prolife of 
their freedom of speech.

                              {time}  1750

  In essence the proponents of this bill are saying that free speech is 
good as long as you share their ideological beliefs. The sponsors of 
this bill are willing to subordinate rights guaranteed by the 
Constitution to further their proabortion agenda.
  This legislation starts us in a very dangerous course, Mr. Speaker, 
away from essential civil liberties. I urge Members to oppose the rule, 
and I hope in the debates that follow we can get out some more 
information about it.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. 
Speaker, when we have met questions of conscience, and certainly the 
right to life of unborn children is a question of conscience, America 
has met those issues not with trespass laws, but with the heart. When 
we had civil rights demonstrators in the south in the 1960's, we did 
not pass a Federal law to cut them off. When we had demonstrators 
outside the South African Embassy, we did not pass a Federal law to 
protect foreign embassies in Washington, DC. We met those issues with 
the heart.
  Now, Mother Teresa was speaking here at the National Prayer Breakfast 
a few weeks ago. We did not suggest at that time that if she put that 
little 98 pound body down in front of an abortion clinic three times, 
maybe she would qualify under three strikes you are out, that somehow 
she should be punished for having a conscience.
  America has always given some credibility and some leeway to people 
who urge an issue of conscience on their fellow Americans, and they 
should do so in this case. And this rule strikes right at the heart of 
America's ethic in that regard.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just make the 
point, I do not see how this could possibly be viewed as 
constitutional. It singles out a single group of people and punishes in 
essence their speech, while allowing others to go unpunished for 
identical conduct.
  I hope we defeat the rule. I am sure we will be, on the other votes 
and debate that follows, adding other points to this debate.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote 
yes on this rule, and, to go to conference on the Freedom of Access to 
Clinic Entrances bill. The bill has such strong support that it passed 
this body by voice vote. This bill is about removing obstacles to our 
fundamental rights, so placing obstacles in its path now would be 
fundamentally wrong.
  This bill will give our law enforcement officers the tools necessary 
to prevent blockades of clinics, and, to punish lawbreakers. Law 
enforcement at all levels is crying out for swift enactment of this 
bill--from Attorney General Janet Reno, to your local police officers.
  I want to point out that this is not an issue of freedom of speech, 
nor are many of the protesters in front of abortion clinics nonviolent 
as they claim. The frequency and danger of their acts have escalated 
alarmingly in recent years. Last year, they assaulted patients and 
staff, and murdered a doctor.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the unlawful 
activities waged by protesters at clinics. Vote ``Yes'' on the rule and 
vote ``Yes'' to go to conference on the Freedom of Access to Clinic 
Entrances bill.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman who spoke last might look at her 
remarks when she said ``they murdered someone.'' Who does she mean by 
``they?'' Does that include Jim Bunning's daughters who have rescued, 
or some of my children who have rescued, or Mother Teresa? It is not 
``they.'' It was one pathetic murderer who shot an abortionist in the 
back three times, and who is now going to spend the rest of his life in 
prison. This, I might add, was all handled by local law enforcement 
agencies.
  Let me tell you the kind of things that bring up the passion in this 
issue and why it is never going to go away. As I said this morning in 
my 1 minute, when I was here last year on St. Patrick's Day, I said I 
hoped we were going to get a new grandson or granddaughter named Liam 
or Colleen. We got a Liam.
  Our grandchild No. 1, Sally's and mine, brought this to me 3 days 
ago. It is out of the Yellow Pages phone book in Virginia. He got it 
out of his phone book over in Burke. I got one out of my phone book in 
Fairfax. It says ``Five percent off on your abortion,'' a green coupon 
from the Yellow Pages.
  This is cultural meltdown, folks. When Tipper Gore and our friend and 
former colleague Al Gore and Bill and Hillary Clinton sit there, and 
the expression is sitting on their hands, while a room of over 2,000 
people burst into applause when Mother Teresa says abortion is the 
destroyer of peace, the worst destroyer of peace in the world, that 
creates compassion in people.
  I will say it again, the pro-life movement is not represented by this 
pathetic Michael Griffin, who is going to spend the rest of his life in 
jail.
  Now, if you were Protestant, and there is a church you treasured 
where you were baptized and it was trashed, or a synagogue where you 
were bar mitzvahed and it was trashed, why are my proabortion 
colleagues afraid to protect these places of worship?
  If you are a Protestant with a church that is beloved to your family, 
where you buried your parents, where you were married, and you see your 
Bible dragged off the altar and thrown on the floor and you hear every 
foul obscenity screamed in there, why is that not included?
  If you see the synagogue where your daughters were bat mitzvahed, and 
you see the sacred Torah ripped off the altar and thrown down and 
desecrated, why is that not included?
  And my St. Patrick's Cathedral, where I was baptized, where my 
parents were married, where the Sacred Host, which Catholics believe to 
be the full body and blood of Jesus Christ the Savior, is thrown on the 
ground, why are you afraid to include this kind of misjustice in this 
bill. Because you are on an abortion agenda, and nothing else.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee [Mrs. Lloyd].
  (Mrs. LLOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to go to 
conference on S. 636, the Freedom to Access Clinic Entrances Act 
[FACE]. I am dismayed by the senseless violence that has occurred in 
this country against both individuals seeking health services and 
providers of health care. I realize that many people have deeply held 
opinions on the subject of abortion. I believe that the right to voice 
or demonstrate ones' opinion is the essence of our democratic society. 
However, it is inconceivable to me that the divergence of convictions 
has led to intentional obstruction of individuals' access and personal 
freedom to medical services--not just abortion.
  I believe that individuals should have the opportunity to access the 
best health care services available. I am outraged at malicious acts of 
violence that have occurred toward individuals and health facilities. 
These traumatic incidents have sent a frightening message across the 
Untied States, that individuals seeking or providing health services 
are now susceptible to threats, injury, or death. Our Founding Fathers 
did not create the first amendment to justify intrusion on our fellow 
citizens' civil and constitutional rights. This is not an attempt to 
promote a pro-abortion agenda.
  The FACE bill is a response to the threats and intentional 
interference that has plagued our health clinics. The language as 
stated does not amend the first amendment, nor does it infringe upon 
the fabric of the Constitution. The legislation incorporates language 
from operative Federal statutes, such as the prohibition to use or 
threaten to use force to willfully injure, intimidate, or interfere 
with an individual's right to vote. Thus, the argument that this bill 
is unconstitutional, simply does not hold water.
  I wholeheartedly support the first amendment of the Constitution--
protecting the freedom of speech or the press, the freedom to establish 
a religion, the freedom to petition the Government, and the right to 
peaceably assemble. Everyone is entitled to express their views and I 
respect that. The first amendment is the backbone of this country and I 
hold it as a sacred right. However, the first amendment is exploited 
when individual inflict harm onto other individuals or violate others' 
civil and constitutional rights.
  Mr. Speaker, S. 636 will not prohibit peaceful protesting, 
assembling, or picketing. This legislation maintains the right to voice 
one's opinions and assemble for something that is of great concern, as 
long as it does not present harm to others. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill. Thank you.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think Members on both sides of this 
issue would agree that violence that is senseless, or any violence is 
senseless, and we want to stop that. But both sides, I think if they 
would be out on the picket lines and would witness someone that is 
committing violence, would stop that, and that is protected by State 
laws.
  But let me tell you where my real problem is with the bill. If you 
reworded it, I might even be able to support it.

                              {time}  1800

  My fear is, I have two daughters. When we talk about interfere and 
intimidate, both my daughters are underage. One is 11; one is 15. If 
either one of them underage were in a clinic receiving an abortion, I 
would walk into that clinic and there would be no power alive that 
would prevent me from going in and taking my 11-year-old or my 15-year-
old out of that clinic, as a father.
  Under what some Members want to do is make that a Federal penalty. 
There is a State law, if I abuse or hurt my daughters, then that is 
going to be effected. But if I would merely walk in, throw them over my 
shoulder and take them out, that would be a Federal penalty. I, as a 
father, would not allow that to happen.
  I think that if we want to have a bill to enforce State law for 
violence, then both sides of the aisle are going to support it. But 
there is an agenda here.
  That agenda is what we are against.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Studds). The Chair would advise the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] that he has consumed all of his 
time. The gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield such 
time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the 
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong support of the Freedom of 
Access to Clinic Entrances bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote for 
the motion to go to conference.
  A nationwide campaign of antiabortion, violence, vandalism and 
blockades is curtailing the availability of abortion services and 
endangering providers and patients.
  The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act [FACE] will provide 
Federal protection against the unlawful and often violent tactics used 
by antichoice extremists.
  Although we are free to express our views on this emotional and 
controversial issue under the protection of the first amendment, this 
protection has been abused and we desperately need the protections that 
this bill provides.
  The murder of Dr. David Gunn may be viewed by some as an anomaly--
something done by a disturbed individual from a movement with many 
erratic people.
  But listen to the weak disavowals of violence by the antichoice 
people and more importantly understand that this was not an isolated 
incident.
  Since 1977, opponents of choice have directed more than 1000 reported 
acts of violence at abortion providers, including bombings, arson, 
death threats, kidnappings, assaults and shootings.
  And there has been an increasing level of violence in recent year. 
Operation rescue's ``no place to hide'' campaign terrorizes doctors and 
health care workers nationwide. Doctors and their families are followed 
to work, school, and shopping, and harassed at their homes.
  And clinics all over the country are being damaged by arson and 
chemical sprays.
  Clearly this bill is necessary and long overdue.
  I urge my colleagues to back away from their parliamentary tactics 
tonight so that we can put an end to this senseless violence and abuse 
of our 1st amendment rights.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrance Act, which 
passed both Houses of Congress late last year, a substantial vote in 
the Senate and unanimously here, was developed in response to the 
glowing problem of orchestrated violence at reproductive health clinics 
all across the Nation. In recent years, the level of this violence has 
escalated. The list is long and sad: vandalism, arson, bombing, 
gassing, physical attacks, death threats, shooting and murder against 
clinic staffs and their families as well as against the women who need 
the health services the clinics offer.
  The statistics tell a horrible story. Between 1977 and 1993, over 
1,000 acts of violence were reported against clinics and health care 
providers that include 36 bombings, 18 arsons, 131 death threats, 84 
assaults, two kidnappings, 327 clinic invasions, and one murder. Just 
last March, as was mentioned before, Dr. David Gunn was shot and 
killed, and his assailant was convicted last week and will spend most 
of his life now in jail.
  These acts of violence not only hurt those directly hit, they affect 
thousands of women who need the clinics for their health care. More 
than 90 percent of the clinics that have experienced blockades or 
violence also provided other health services in addition to abortions. 
Many of the clinics targeted for blockades and harassment are located 
in rural areas. Frequently, they are the only source for reproductive 
medical care for the women they serve. Disruptions in the operation of 
these clinics has, therefore, deprived many women of badly-needed 
medical services above and beyond abortion.
  While it is true that most State and local law enforcement does have 
the authority to police the violations of their criminal codes, in 
reality this often does not happen. In some cases a locality does not 
have the resources to balance the large scale, long-term operations, 
including trespass, vandalism and assault. In other cases they simply 
choose not to do so. Clearly, a Federal remedy is the only answer if we 
are to standardize law enforcement and offer all clinics the same 
protection.
  Until early this year, Federal courts could act to restrain clinic 
blockades. But in the Bray case, the statute that we used was deemed to 
no longer offer protection to clinics and providers. And we had no 
legal means of ending disruptions, no way to keep the clinics open and 
safe for women, their doctors and their nurses.
  Attorney General Janet Reno has testified that no other Federal law 
is applicable in this situation. She noted that ``the reluctance of 
local authorities to protect the rights of individuals provides a 
powerful justification for the enactment of Federal protections, 
protections that have been evoked previously by Congress in passing 
laws to protect civil rights.'' This legislation will fill the gap and 
provide these protections.
  The National Association of Attorneys General supports the 
legislation for just that reason, as does the American Medical 
Association, the League of Women Voters, among many others.
  Mr. Speaker, we are doing simple housekeeping here tonight. This is a 
procedure that we always use to get to conference, but for the first 
time in my memory in Congress we have had to go this route. We have 
never before been asked to get a special rule in order to go to 
conference.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to add, which I think is 
important, the prior speaker from California said that he, as a parent, 
would be penalized under this bill. I think the gentlewoman and I would 
want to make it perfectly clear to him that under this bill it says, 
``Parents and legal guardians of minors are not subject to the 
penalties of the Act.''
  I want to thank the gentlewoman for her hard work on this. We have 
heard a lot of disinformation on this bill. The gentlewoman is right, 
this is a very extraordinary procedure.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. It certainly is. As a matter of fact, 19 times in the 
102d Congress we went to conference without this procedure. And several 
times already in this Congress, as recently as last month, on the 
Independent Counsel bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The question is on ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) there were--noes 16, ayes 5.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there--yeas 248, nays 
168, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 66]

                               YEAS--248

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--168

     Allard
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Brown (CA)
     Collins (IL)
     Farr
     Fowler
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Green
     Hastings
     Kanjorski
     Livingston
     Manton
     Meek
     Michel
     Mollohan
     Natcher
     Tucker
     Weldon

                              {time}  1827

  Mr. DICKEY and Ms. DUNN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BREWSTER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Studds). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 244, 
noes 171, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 67]

                               AYES--244

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--171

     Allard
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Brown (CA)
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Farr
     Fowler
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Green
     Hancock
     Hastings
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Livingston
     Manton
     Meek
     Michel
     Natcher
     Tucker

                              {time}  1836

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Grandy against.
       Mrs. Meek for, with Mr. Livingston against.

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________