[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.
____________________