[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]
FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINIC ENTRANCES ACT OF 1993
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 374 I call
up from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 363) to amend the
Public Health Service Act to permit individuals to have freedom of
access to certain medical clinics and facilities, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. The
Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the Senate bill is as follows:
S. 636
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act of 1993''.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) medical clinics and other facilities throughout the
Nation offering abortion-related services have been targeted
in recent years by an interstate campaign of violence and
obstruction aimed at closing the facilities or physically
blocking ingress to them, and intimidating those seeking to
obtain or provide abortion-related services;
(2) as a result of such conduct, women are being denied
access to, and health care providers are being prevented from
delivering, vital reproductive health services;
(3) such conduct subjects women to increased medical risks
and thereby jeopardizes the public health and safety;
(4) the methods used to deny women access to these services
include blockades of facility entrances; invasions and
occupations of the premises; vandalism and destruction of
property in and around the facility; bombings, arson, and
murder; and other acts of force and threats of force;
(5) those engaging in such tactics frequently trample
police lines and barricades and overwhelm State and local law
enforcement authorities and courts and their ability to
restrain and enjoin unlawful conduct and prosecute those who
have violated the law;
(6) this problem is national in scope, and because of its
magnitude and interstate nature exceeds the ability of any
single State or local jurisdiction to solve it;
(7) such conduct operates to infringe upon women's ability
to exercise full enjoyment of rights secured to them by
Federal and State law, both statutory and constitutional, and
burdens interstate commerce, including by interfering with
business activities of medical clinics involved in interstate
commerce and by forcing women to travel from States where
their access to reproductive health services is obstructed to
other States;
(8) the entities that provide pregnancy or abortion-related
services engage in commerce by purchasing and leasing
facilities and equipment, selling goods and services,
employing people, and generating income;
(9) such entities purchase medicine, medical supplies,
surgical instruments, and other supplies produced in other
States;
(10) violence, threats of violence, obstruction, and
property damage directed at abortion providers and medical
facilities have had the effect of restricting the interstate
movement of goods and people;
(11) prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Bray v.
Alexandria Women's Health Clinic (113 S. Ct. 753 (1993)),
such conduct was frequently restrained and enjoined by
Federal courts in actions brought under section 1980(3) of
the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1985(3));
(12) in the Bray decision, the Court denied a remedy under
such section to persons injured by the obstruction of access
to abortion-related services;
(13) legislation is necessary to prohibit the obstruction
of access by women to pregnancy or abortion-related services
and to ensure that persons injured by such conduct, as well
as the Attorney General of the United States and State
Attorneys General, can seek redress in the Federal courts;
(14) the obstruction of access to pregnancy or abortion-
related services can be prohibited, and the right of injured
parties to seek redress in the courts can be established,
without abridging the exercise of any rights guaranteed under
the First Amendment to the Constitution or other law; and
(15) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of
article I of the Constitution as well as under section 5 of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution to enact such
legislation.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to protect and
promote the public health and safety and activities affecting
interstate commerce by prohibiting the use of force, threat
of force or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate or
interfere with a person seeking to obtain or provide
pregnancy or abortion-related services, and the destruction
of property of facilities providing pregnancy or abortion-
related services, and by establishing the right of private
parties injured by such conduct, as well as the Attorney
General of the United States and State Attorneys General in
appropriate cases, to bring actions for appropriate relief.
SEC. 3. FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINIC ENTRANCES.
Title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aaa et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new section:
``SEC. 2715. FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINIC ENTRANCES.
``(a) Prohibited Activities.--Whoever--
``(1) by force or threat of force or by physical
obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes
with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any
person because that person is or has been, or in order to
intimidate such person or any other person or any class of
persons from, obtaining or providing pregnancy or abortion-
related services: Provided, however, That nothing in this
section shall be construed as expanding or limiting the
authority of States to regulate the performance of abortions
or the availability of pregnancy or abortion-related
services;
``(2) by force or threat of force or by physical
obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes
with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any
person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First
Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of worship;
or
``(3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a
medical facility or in which a medical facility is located,
or attempts to do so, because such facility provides
pregnancy or abortion-related services, or intentionally
damages or destroys the property of a place of religious
worship,
shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsection (b)
and the civil remedies provided in subsection (c), except
that a parent or legal guardian of a minor shall not be
subject to any penalties or civil remedies under this section
for such activities insofar as they are directed exclusively
at that minor.
``(b) Penalties.--Whoever violates this section shall--
``(1) in the case of a first offense, be fined in
accordance with title 18, United States Code (which fines
shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury,
miscellaneous receipts (pursuant to section 3302 of title 31,
United States Code), notwithstanding any other law), or
imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both; and
``(2) in the case of a second or subsequent offense after a
prior conviction under this section, be fined in accordance
with title 18, United States Code (which fines shall be paid
into the general fund of the Treasury, miscellaneous receipts
(pursuant to section 3302 of title 31, United States Code),
notwithstanding any other law), or imprisoned not more than 3
years, or both;
except that for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent
physical obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000
and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than six
months, or both, for the first offense; and the fine shall be
not more than $25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be
not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent offense;
and except that if bodily injury results, the length of
imprisonment shall be not more than 10 years, and if death
results, it shall be for any term of years or for life.
``(c) Civil Remedies.--
``(1) Right of action.--
``(A) In general.--Any person aggrieved by reason of the
conduct prohibited by subsection (a) may commence a civil
action for the relief set forth in subparagraph (B), except
that such an action may be brought under subsection (a)(1)
only by a person involved in providing or seeking to provide,
or obtaining or seeking to obtain, services in a medical
facility that provides pregnancy or abortion-related
services.
``(B) Relief.--In any action under subparagraph (A), the
court may award appropriate relief, including temporary,
preliminary or permanent injunctive relief and compensatory
and punitive damages, as well as the costs of suit and
reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. With
respect to compensatory damages, the plaintiff may elect, at
any time prior to the rendering of final judgment, to
recover, in lieu of actual damages, an award of statutory
damages in the amount of $5,000 per violation.
``(2) Action by attorney general of the united states.--
``(A) In general.--If the Attorney General of the United
States has reasonable cause to believe that any person or
group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by
conduct constituting a violation of this section, and such
conduct raises an issue of general public importance, the
Attorney General may commence a civil action in any
appropriate United States District Court.
``(B) Relief.--In any action under subparagraph (A), the
court may award appropriate relief, including temporary,
preliminary or permanent injunctive relief and compensatory
damages to persons aggrieved as described in paragraph
(1)(B). The court, to vindicate the public interest, may also
assess a civil penalty against each respondent--
``(i) in an amount not exceeding $10,000 for a nonviolent
physical obstruction and $15,000 for other first violations;
and
``(ii) in an amount not exceeding $15,000 for a nonviolent
physical obstruction and $25,000, for any other subsequent
violation.
``(3) Actions by state attorneys general.--
``(A) In general.--If the Attorney General of a State has
reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of
persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct
constituting a violation of this section, and such conduct
raises an issue of general public importance, such Attorney
General may commence a civil action in the name of such
State, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons
residing in such State, in any appropriate United States
District Court.
``(B) Relief.--In any action under subparagraph (A), the
court may award appropriate relief, including temporary,
preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, and civil penalties as described in paragraph
(2)(B).
``(d) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed or interpreted to--
``(1) prevent any State from exercising jurisdiction over
any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the
absence of this section;
``(2) deprive State and local law enforcement authorities
of responsibility for prosecuting acts that may be violations
of this section and that are violations of State or local
law;
``(3) provide exclusive authority to prosecute, or
exclusive penalties for, acts that may be violations of this
section and that are violations of other Federal laws;
``(4) limit or otherwise affect the right of a person
aggrieved by acts that may be violations of this section to
seek other available civil remedies;
``(5) prohibit expression protected by the First Amendment
to the Constitution; or
``(6) create new remedies for interference with expressive
activities protected by the First Amendment to the
Constitution, occurring outside a medical facility,
regardless of the point of view expressed.
``(e) Definitions.--As used in this section:
``(1) Interfere with.--The term `interfere with' means to
restrict a person's freedom of movement.
``(2) Intimidate.--The term `intimidate' means to place a
person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to him- or
herself or to another.
``(3) Medical facility.--The term `medical facility'
includes a hospital, clinic, physician's office, or other
facility that provides health or surgical services or
counselling or referral related to health or surgical
services.
``(4) Physical obstruction.--The term `physical
obstruction' means rendering impassable ingress to or egress
from a medical facility that provides pregnancy or abortion-
related services or to or from a place of religious worship,
or rendering passage to or from such a facility or place of
religious worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous.
``(5) Pregnancy or abortion-related services.--The term
`pregnancy or abortion-related services' includes medical,
surgical, counselling or referral services, provided in a
medical facility, relating to pregnancy or the termination of
a pregnancy.
``(6) State.--The term `State' includes a State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, and any
commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United
States.''.
SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, nothing in
this Act shall be construed to interfere with the rights
guaranteed to an individual under the First Amendment to the
Constitution, or limit any existing legal remedies against
forceful interference with any person's lawful participation
in speech or peaceful assembly.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect with respect to conduct
occurring on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
motion offered by mrs. schroeder
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 374, I
offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Schroeder moves to strike out all after the enacting
clause of the Senate bill, S. 636, and insert in lieu thereof
the provisions of H.R. 796 as passed by the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs.
Schroeder] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am sorry the House
has to stay so late tonight. In my entire tenure I have never seen us
have to go through this extraordinary procedure to go to conference on
a bill that passed 69 to 30 in the other body, and on the motion to
recommit it here it was defeated 246 to 182. So I find it extraordinary
we are here at this late hour having to pursue this, and I am trying to
negotiate with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] to see if
there is any way that we could expedite this process. The gentlewoman
from Colorado wants to move this along. The gentleman from New Jersey
has said to me he might cut back some of his amendments and let the
House get on with its business if I yielded him some time for the
purpose of debate only.
At this moment, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Smith] to see if that is our agreement.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] for yielding, I will cut back on some of the
rollcall votes that I intended on asking in exchange, as the
gentlewoman pointed out. It was my request that we get a time to
explain ourselves on this side and some of those on that side of the
aisle who believe so passionately that by turning nonviolent, civil
disobedient acts into felonies, it is really a very, very severe and
very bad precedent. Apply it to any other movement, and I think we will
see very clearly that it would be laughed right out of this Chamber.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Smith] has not told me how many amendments he would
seek if we gave him that time. We have heard from the gentleman from
New Jersey when the bill was on the floor. We heard him during the
rule. If the gentleman from New Jersey is not going to cut back the
number of votes, then I am not going to yield the gentleman any more
time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I have a list of 20 votes, I would say to my
good friend from Colorado. I will cut it in half and, perhaps, even go
further.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I think, if the gentleman would like to
cut it down to 2 votes, then I think we will be happy to let him debate
it, but I honestly think we have already had 3 votes more than we have
ever seen on any procedure that I have ever seen, and I really think
that that is being very, very generous.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield,
what we are being denied here, and again I am very open to reducing
this number so that we have substantive votes on this important issue,
but it seems to me that we need this debate, and by yielding 15 minutes
to our side, Mr. Speaker, we could explain ourselves----
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time because my feeling was
that, if we could cut it down, I believe in a family-friendly Congress.
This is very late. This is an extraordinary procedure, and I would hope
that the gentleman from New Jersey would be willing to cut it down to
just a couple of votes----
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] has made a generous offer.
If the gentleman seeks debate, which we have had twice already on
this bill, but wishes to do it a third time, which he is saying is,
``Trade in all these unnecessary votes where we all know what the
outcome will be, and get some time for debate.'' But to say he is going
to ask for 20 votes, to 10 votes, meaning keeping us here instead of 2
in the morning to 12 at night without any chance for debate is not
accomplishing the goals of either side.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that the gentleman accept the offer of
the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] and accomplish what he
says he certainly wants to, which is get yet some more debate on this
already twice debated measure.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman from Colorado
yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to finish with the
gentleman from New Jersey because I want to bring this to conclusion.
Otherwise I would like to move on with the votes. If we are going to
have 20 votes, we may as well just start voting. I do not want to delay
this, and, if the gentleman from New Jersey, and I would yield to him--
--
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman from Colorado
please yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Look, I am perfectly cool. We have got the time. All
I want to know is--I think the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]
makes a good point. He would rather spend his time explaining his
position than calling votes. If that is the gentleman's position and he
is willing to cut back the number of votes, hopefully below 10--how
about 2 votes? Can the gentleman from New Jersey accept 2 votes?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman yield for the purpose
of a parliamentary inquiry?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. No, I do not. I am waiting for the gentleman from New
Jersey at this point, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to be as reasonable and
accommodating as I possibly can, but most people have not focused, I
say regrettably, on just how extreme and radical this piece of
legislation is.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker----
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me finish.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time unless the gentleman
is willing to tell us because we have had this discussion over and over
and over.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Not with this many people present.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.
point of order
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, under the procedure that is being
utilized does the minority get half the time that has been allocated on
this motion?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House is proceeding under the 1-hour
rule.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Is the answer to the question no, there is no
debate time unless the gentlewoman from Colorado yields it?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rules of the House, the
gentlewoman controls the 1 hour of debate.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential motion at the desk,
though.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado at the moment
holds the floor.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I think at this point what I understand
the gentleman from New Jersey to be saying, which I think is very fair,
is that, if we gave him 15 minutes to carry on debate, and with many
Members here, then what we could do is he would limit it to 5 votes and
Members could get home at a fairly reasonable time.
Is that the gentleman from New Jersey's----
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the way I read the number of
votes, 5 would be a reasonable number, but again I am doing that for
the benefit of the Members because I think we need this debate more
than anything else.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. And the gentleman from Wisconsin would agree with
that?
{time} 1850
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield, for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman agree with the
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the proper procedure is to yield the
minority half of the time, just like the Committee on Rules does when
rules are brought up.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman has
heard from the Chair that under this procedure, the majority controls
the time. I am sorry, those are the rules.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the amendment and the bill.
motion to table offered by mr. smith of new jersey
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey moves to lay on the table the House
amendment to S. 636.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Studds). The question is on the motion
to table offered by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 175,
nays 240, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 68]
YEAS--175
Allard
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Browder
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Fish
Gallegly
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
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
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moorhead
Myers
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Penny
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ravenel
Regula
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Saxton
Schaefer
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)
NAYS--240
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
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
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)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
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
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Oxley
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
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schenk
Schiff
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
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--18
Brown (CA)
Collins (IL)
Farr
Fowler
Gallo
Grandy
Green
Hastings
Johnston
Livingston
Manton
Meek
Michel
Natcher
Rostenkowski
Tucker
Watt
Williams
{time} 1912
Mr. BEVILL and Mr. McINNIS changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to table was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my motion on the previous
question, and I reclaim my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Studds). The gentlewoman from Colorado
[Mrs. Schroeder] reclaims her time.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Sensenbrenner].
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, I
would inquire if I will get the traditional 30 minutes that are
accorded to the Minority under this type of procedure.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, at this point I think we should let the
Members know what is going on.
Mr. Speaker, This is the bill of the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Schumer]. If the two gentlemen would work out this agreement so Members
would know where we are, then we will figure this out.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Schumer].
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, here is the agreement that we worked out,
just so the Members can know and plan their evening accordingly.
We have just withdrawn this motion to strike the enacting clause, Mr.
Speaker. There will be 30 minutes debate on each side. There will then
be that vote on the recommittal of the Senate bill. Immediately
following that, there will be a second vote on the Senate bill that is
read for the third time.
Then we will move next to the motion that the House insist on its
amendment and go to a conference with the Senate. There will be 60
minutes debate, 30 and 30. It is not certain all of that will be used,
but it can be a maximum of 60.
Mr. Speaker, we will then vote on the motion to instruct conferees,
and that will be 30 and 30, as well. All told, that means that there
are four votes, and there is 60 minutes of debate, a vote, another
vote, 60 minutes of debate, another vote, 60 minutes of debate, another
vote. That is it. It is unlikely that all that time will be used.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Sensenbrenner] if that is the agreement on his side.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to
yield, that is my understanding of the agreement.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
{time} 1920
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Studds). Without objection, the
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] will be recognized for 30
minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
There was no objection.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Sensenbrenner].
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, just to bring everybody up to date as
to what has been going on here, the reason why we had the last two
rollcall votes was because the gentlewoman from Colorado did not wish
to yield any time to the minority side of the aisle to debate her
motion.
The whole purpose of a parliamentary assembly is to be a clash of
ideas and a clash of ideals so that the arguments on all sides of the
issue can be placed before the membership of the parliamentary assembly
and the public at large for their consideration and for their decision.
To attempt to gag a dissenting viewpoint during the debate on an
issue as sensitive as this trods on minority rights, and it is my
belief that this legislation itself trods on minority rights. It is
legislation that is designed specifically to put an end to protests in
front of abortion clinics. Those who are in support of this legislation
argue that the acts of violence which have been occasionally committed
during these abortion clinic protests are sufficient to bring the full
weight of the Federal Government down on the protests themselves. I
reject that assertion.
All we need to do is to look at the successful prosecution of the man
who murdered Dr. David Gunn in front of his abortion clinic in
Pensacola, FL, to prove this point. The jury did not take long to
convict the person who was accused of murdering Dr. Gunn, and that
person has been sentenced to life imprisonment in the Florida State
penitentiary.
There are also adequate arson, assault, battery, and disorderly
conduct laws that can be used to prosecute those who protest in front
of the clinic should they go across the line of the law and violate the
law.
So why are we here today? We are here today because those who protest
against abortion are doing a politically incorrect thing in the mores
of today. But much of the change of our society today in America has
been as a result of protest. Most of those protests have been peaceful,
but there have been some unfortunate and sporadic acts of violence.
Whether we look at the protests during the organization of the labor
movement at the end of the last century, protests during the civil
rights demonstrations of the 1960's, or during the anti-Vietnam war
demonstrations of the late 1960's or early 1970's, all of the
protestors utilized their first amendment rights to effectuate change.
In each of these protest movements there were sporadic acts of
violence, but at no time did people come to the Congress of the United
States to try to criminalize a whole movement, and that is what is
happening here today.
The first amendment, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, is an absolute
prohibition, and this legislation is specifically designed against the
people on one side of a particular issue. It could have easily been
passed decades ago or perhaps even a century ago against the antiwar
movement, against the civil rights movement, or against the labor
movement, and if it had been, this country would not be a better place
today.
Please, do not send this bill off to conference and on to the
President of the United States. This is too important an issue. It is
an issue of the right to protest.
There are adequate Federal laws that are on the books to deal with
those people who commit acts of mayhem against persons or property. Let
us be sensitive to the first amendment even though voting ``no'' is
politically incorrect.
Twenty-five years from now, people will look back at this law, if it
passes, and realize that this would probably be the biggest mistake of
the 103d Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, nonviolent civil disobedience has been used by virtually
every cause and movement under the Sun including civil rights,
environmental, D.C. statehood, and a whole host of other causes, and
unfortunately, this legislation picks out and focuses exclusively on
pro-lifers and says that they will be treated with a different
standard.
Mr. Speaker, what this bill is all about is establishing in law, in
Federal law, a double standard. Usually when people commit minor
offenses like trespass, say, on behalf of AIDS activists, or perhaps
animal rights folks who are unhappy with a certain policy, they endure
a very light penalty, and perhaps they may be fined, perhaps they may
spend the night in jail.
This legislation says that if the same person commits the same kind
of offense, simply trespasses or, in this case, gets in the way of
somebody who is going to or from an abortion clinic, and that could be
the abortionist himself, it could just about be anybody who is going in
or out, if they get in the way, despite the fact that it is a
peaceful, nonviolent demonstration, they could be smacked with a very
heavy Federal penalty of up to 1 year prison for the first offense, 3
years in prison for the second and any subsequent offenses. Moreover,
they will be hit with massive fines, criminal sanctions, of up to a
quarter of a million dollars simply for either getting in the way or
attempting to get in the way.
H.R. 796, if it becomes law, Mr. Speaker, will for the first time
since the Fugitive Slave Act make nonviolent civil disobedience a
felony. This legislation would turn our Nation's longstanding policy of
peaceful civil disobedience on its head.
Again, it would only do it selectively at pro-lifers.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 796 goes to great lengths to protect the financial
wherewithal of abortion clinics. However, there is no concern
whatsoever demonstrated for the peaceful lower- and middle-income
citizens, and they make up the bulk of those who are out there
picketing, who would be subjected to these draconian jail terms and
fines and lawsuits if the bill becomes law.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is outrageous and it is unfair that
advocates who physically batter or abuse peaceful pro-lifers be immune
under this bill to any penalty contained in H.R. 796.
{time} 1930
In fact, I would submit that the passage of this legislation will
actually encourage so-called pro-choice activists, the fringe--and both
sides of this debate have fringe elements--it would encourage them to
taunt and abuse pro-lifers. If they succeed in eliciting an actionable
response, they can then hit the pro-lifer with violations of Federal
law and sue for punitive damages in civil actions. Make no mistake
about it, abortion activists routinely and systematically abuse pro-
lifers at abortion clinics. Women who have worked for the abortion
industry have told House and Senate committees about numerous instances
of abuse by so-called pro-choice activists against pro-lifers.
Here are some examples: Katherine Hudson served for 3 years as an
abortion clinic defense activist, primarily in the Washington, DC,
area. She says,
From many conversations with police not only in D.C. but in
Houston, Buffalo, and with Federal marshals, I know that law
enforcement is much more concerned with the behavior of the
more radical pro-choice liberal activists such as National
Women's Rights Organizing Coalition, Refuse and Resist, Act
Up, and Queer Nation, than they are with Operation Rescue.
Mr. Speaker, the Bay Area Coalition Against Operation Rescue is very
explicit in their literature, they make it very clear that they want to
taunt pro-lifers who are peacefully assembling outside of an abortion
clinic. They point out in their brochure, of which I have a copy, and I
quote,
As Operation Rescue shifted to picketing more than
blockading, we have learned that we,
meaning their group,
can't relax and let them just picket. Even if the sidewalk is
public, we have had success at putting enough of us out,
early enough to basically bully the ORs into staying across
the street.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this legislation is one-sided. It enacts
into law a very, very serious double standard.
Mr. Speaker, I know it is late, it is St. Patrick's Day. I would like
to be out of here, everybody would like to be out of here, but we
cannot turn our back on this gross injustice that will be done tonight
if this goes to conference and comes back, again--and I have no doubt
it will come back in a very similar wording.
So let us go back to the drawing board, let us craft a fair law that
makes violence against abortion providers and pro-lifers a Federal
crime.
We are against violence; you say you are against violence; let us
craft language that goes after all those who commit violence. Let us
not go after those who commit acts of civil disobedience and are
peaceful and ought to be under the jurisdiction of the local statute.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to continue to reserve my
time because some of it had been expended.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker and my friends, the USO used to have a slogan, ``Does
anybody know I am here?'' They were speaking for the soldier, the
sailor, the marine who was out of town, alone, ``Does anybody know I am
here?''
I wonder sometimes about Congress people, whether they really are
able to focus on the real world and what is going on, because when we
are sworn in every 2 years, those of us who have been here a few terms,
you raise your right hand and you take an oath to defend the
Constitution. That ought to mean something, and I presume it does.
I presume everybody that raises their arm and takes an oath to defend
the Constitution understands that part of that Constitution provides
for equal protection of the law. Does that not have a nice ring to it?
Equal protection of the law.
That is what is terribly wrong with this legislation, this Freedom of
Access to Clinic legislation, because it does not treat people equally.
It singles out one group, one group of protesters, and it provides
them with the most invidious treatment possible; unconscionably hard,
mean-spirited, penalizing punishment for some conduct that they engage
in that has been declared illegal. The same conduct in no way attains
the level of the penalties provided in this legislation if it is done
in a labor dispute, if it is done by nuclear protesters, if it is done
by animal rights activists, if it is done by people who want to tell
the world that Armageddon is coming next Sunday, military protesters,
civil rights protesters, labor disputes. Mr. Speaker, there is a myriad
of disputes that people feel passionately about, a myriad of causes
that they are involved in that people will go to great lengths to
demonstrate their involvement and their commitment to.
Among them is the pro-life cause. Pro-life people believe in the very
fiber of their being that what is going on in an abortion clinic is the
same thing that went on at Buchenwald, Dachau, Auschwitz; innocent
human lives are being destroyed.
They feel so strongly about that that they are willing to put their
own physical bodies on the line, stand in front of pickets and pray and
protest and hand out leaflets and pamphlets, and some of them go so far
as to sit in physically.
Now, I do not condone that; I do not condone that. I think anybody
ought to be able to exercise their freedom of assembly, with egress and
ingress, without undue interference. So, when people interfere with you
going into a building which you have a legal right to go into, they
ought to be punished, but the punishment ought to fit the crime. You do
not decapitate somebody because they sit in a building, but that is
what this bill does. It singles out pro-life protesters for felonious
conduct, up to a year in jail on the first offense, 2 years in jail for
the second offense--or is it 3 years in jail for the second offense;
$100,000, and then the second offense upwards of $200,000, treating
them as ax murderers. That is not equal protection of the law.
Now, regardless of what you think of the abortion cause or the pro-
life cause, regardless of what you think of that, this legislation is
setting a precedent. It would never be applied to civil rights leaders
or protesters, environmentalists, but it is being applied to pro-life
protesters. That is what is wrong.
We ought to reject it. We ought to resist it because it destroys, it
shreds, it does violence to the constitutional precept of equal
protection of the law. Treat those protesters equally, treat the same
conduct in the same way rather than singling out one group and because
the reigning forces in this Congress, the liberal people who control
this place, despise pro-life people--and for that I regret and I hope
the years will mature their outlook--but do not treat them for
outlandish punishment; do not force them to endure outlandish
punishment because you radicalize this issue. You are not helping to
solve it and calm people down and to work things out, which is what we
all ought to work for. You are throwing the gauntlet down. It is
unconstitutional. I predict it will not stand in the courts. It
certainly violates anybody's notion of fair play and equal protection
of the law.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this is probably the most important point
in this entire emotionally charged debate. What was particularly
revealing during my earlier colloquy with the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Smith] was the question that I asked about the disparate treatment
of a person who is standing in front of the entrance to an abortion
clinic, and if that person is obstructing the entrance to an abortion
clinic as part of a labor dispute, waving a sign that says ``On strike
for higher wages,'' that is only a misdemeanor.
{time} 1940
However, if that same person is waving a sign that says, ``Don't kill
your baby, oppose abortion,'' that is a felony.
So, what is different under this law is this content of the speech
rather than the actions of the person who is being charged with
obstructing the entrance to the abortion clinic. That is patently
unconstitutional as a violation of equal protection under the law, and
no one who feels that that oath that we took at the beginning of this
term means anything can in good conscience vote for this bill.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Sensenbrenner] completely.
It is ironic that in a labor dispute in front of a coal mine in West
Virginia it is worth one's life to try to cross that picket line. There
have been people shot. I have the clippings in my office. The Greyhound
bus strike was one of the most violent in history, and then there is
the New York Daily News strike a few years ago in New York. But none of
those people become Federal felons. It is only if they are sitting in
front of an abortion clinic in somebody's way, clutching their rosary,
or praying, or trying to counsel somebody not to exterminate their
child. Then they become a felon.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I heard that statement many times in this
debate, and it gives rise to the question naturally:
``Why isn't the bill broad enough to include all kinds of violence on
the picket lines?''
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is on the committee that produced this
bill. What is the reasons given by the sponsors? Maybe I should ask one
of them. What are the reasons given by the sponsors why they do not
cover all kinds of violence?
Mr. HYDE. Well, because they are zeroing in on abortion. Somehow
abortion is the singular issue that raises their temperature. They do
not get excited about violence on a picket line if it is a labor
dispute, or if it is antinuclear people, or if it is animal rights
people, or if it is any of those causes that people get involved in
passionately. It is only the prolifers that wave a red flag, and all
balance, all perspective, all proportion goes out the window.
Mr. Speaker, that is kind of a psychological reaction that perhaps a
professor of abnormal psychology could explain, but I cannot.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, it just seems to me a matter of basic
fairness that, if we are going to federalize the area of protecting
people who are trying to cross protester lines, or picket lines, or
something like that, after all it does not make any difference to the
person who was harassed why they were harassed, and it should not make
any difference to people who are concerned about violence what the
reason was, and, as the gentleman said, I think it makes the law
constitutionally much more likely to be infirm if the penalty
discriminates on the basis of the content of the speech.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, ``You're absolutely
right.''
I do not defend obstructionism. I do not defend intimidation,
interfering with people who are exercising their constitutional rights,
and tragically under our law a woman has a constitutional right to go
into an abortion mill and exterminate her unborn child. She has that
right tragically, and to try and stop her, to try and intimidate her, I
think is a violation of the law and ought to be punished. I am prepared
to do that. But let us treat that violation as we would a labor
dispute, as we would an environmental dispute, as we would a civil
liberties dispute, a military dispute. Why just single out the one
cause, and because their motives are to defend unborn children they
become a felon, and somebody else becomes guilty of a misdemeanor. That
is not the American way.
Mr. Speaker, our purpose here tonight is not to embarrass people, not
to ruin St. Patrick's Day for anybody. Our purpose here tonight is to
focus attention on equal protection of the law and remind Members that
they took an oath to defend that concept, and this bill violates it.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Hyde] for having yielded to me, and I will just say that I know other
Members want to speak. I practiced labor-management law for a number of
years, and I can tell the gentleman that the kinds of blocking of
ingress and egress, harassment, threats, that sort of thing, they are
very common on picket lines particularly when the strike lasts for a
few weeks, and I do not see any reason why, if we are going to
federalize in one area, why we should not federalize in others. It is a
question of basic fairness, as the gentleman said.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Talent].
It is my rough opinion that of all the people in this country 20
percent are militantly opposed to abortions for any reason. Twenty
percent are for abortions for any reason or for no reason. And 60
percent of the people are uncomfortable with abortion.
I say to my colleagues, ``You don't win their hearts, and minds and
souls when you engage in violent conduct, and nobody is for that. I'm
certainly not. But treat everybody alike. Don't cast a pall and a chill
over your first amendment expressions of free speech, equal protections
of the law.''
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia [Mrs. Byrne].
(Mrs. BYRNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman who previously
spoke, and his concerns, and those people of conscience, but there
comes a time where we have to say, ``You will not interfere with the
rights, the legal rights, of those who you disagree with.''
Mr. Speaker, we tried it in the civil rights movement. When Bull
Connor blocked the school door from young black children and we said
that was wrong, Mr. Speaker, he disagreed. He believed that his racist
point of view was right. But that did not give him the right to keep
those children out of school.
My colleagues, when we talk about people of conscience I can say from
personal experience just across the river over in Falls Church we have
a women's clinic, and what happened in that clinic was that people
climbed upon the fire escapes, would not move, and, Mr. Speaker, when a
policeman tried to get them to move, they kicked him in the eye and
broke his eye socket, and when a woman who was 60 years old went to get
her blood pressure tested, she was harassed, she was taken aside and
pushed, and she actually went into a cardiac situation because of the
treatment that she got at a health clinic because of the activities
that were going on there through no fault of her own.
I would say to my colleagues that we have a case here that where
people are being harassed, people are being interfered with their legal
given rights, and my colleagues may argue, and all people do argue,
about the legality, but it is a fact. It is a fact that they have legal
rights under the law, and until that is changed we should not allow
those rights under the Constitution to be taken from anyone.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. BYRNE. I yield to the gentleman form New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Virginia
[Mrs. Byrne] makes a good point about the use of violence, or perhaps
even the threat of violence, and that is exactly where I think there is
a consensus among both prolifers and people who believe as the
gentlewoman does. If somebody is going to kick somebody in the eye,
they ought to be hauled off, it ought to be federalized, and I agree
with that. It is when somebody gets in the way, perhaps holding a sign,
perhaps with their hands in their pocket. That will also be treated as
if they committed an act of violence. That is where the disparity, that
is where the unfairness, accrues here.
Mrs. BYRNE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the
gentleman, ``You can hold a sign, and then you can hold a sign. If I'm
trying to get someplace, and somebody puts that sign in my face and
will not move, that's obstruction, that's interference, and it's
totally different than peacefully protesting and counting our
rosaries.''
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me answer some of the questions.
First of all, all of us as Americans know we have the right to our
basic beliefs, and certainly there is absolutely nothing in this bill,
and it is restated over, and over, and over again, there is nothing in
this bill that interferes with the right to free speech, free
picketing, anything that is peaceful and anything that is nonviolent.
{time} 1950
But what we do not have the right to do as Americans is take our
beliefs and inflict or impose them on other people's beliefs. That is
where your freedom ends. Your freedom ends where another person's
beliefs begin. You do not have the right to impose them and to overrule
that.
There is nothing in this bill dealing with free speech or nonviolent
picketing, or you would never have the Committee on the Judiciary, the
ACLU, civil libertarians and everyone else backing it. And I think we
cannot say that enough.
What does this bill do? It says you cannot block access to a clinic.
Now, why is that important? Well, because since 1977, there have been
33,000 arrests for blockading clinics. I have gone to our clinic in
Colorado when there have been people there blockading, and it has taken
the police to get through the line so women could get inside for their
health care.
When you read the editorials of the many newspapers who are talking
about why this bill should be passed, they went to the precedent that
America has always had. The Federal Government does not move in until
it appears that in some parts of the country there is a breakdown, that
they cannot handle the numbers any more. Some places they handle it
well, but some places they just cannot deal any more and basically
clinics are having to close because they cannot get that protection.
Now, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton]
pointed out earlier, that tradition is longstanding. It is longstanding
in the Ku Klux Klan Act. Unfortunately, women in this country were told
the Ku Klux Klan Act does not apply to them because they were not a
protected class when it happened, when it passed.
I hear what the gentlemen on the other side are saying. I am sure
Bull Connor said when he stood in front of the school door, I am just
standing here nonviolently. Yes, but he was blocking access to the
school door, and it was a Republican President, Mr. Eisenhower, who
said no, that is not the American tradition, and called out the
National Guard and made sure that he was moved to one side and children
could have access.
There are many other Federal laws that do not allow blockage of
access. Under labor laws, under section 158(B)(1)(a) of the NLRA, it
says during a strike that it is an unfair labor practice to block
employees from exercising their right to access to the workplace. There
must be access or you can go into Federal Court and get an injunction.
I know this. I use to work for the NLRB, and that used to be my job. So
you can picket and do whatever you want, but you cannot say no one can
come into this workplace.
There are many other areas. We have passed rules on animal rights
violence. We do not allow animal rights protestors to shut off a clinic
that has animal laboratories going on. They must allow access.
We have also got all sorts of laws that prohibit interference with
voting. You cannot go say I am just passively encircling this voting
booth, because we do not want those people to vote. No, that becomes a
hostile act. Nor can you do it around a courthouse, a Federal
courthouse, nor can you do it to obstruct a foreign official from
trying to conduct business, nor can you do it on different Federal
grounds and places where different things are occurring.
So there is all sorts of Federal laws. I can put in those citations
in the report. I am not going to bore everyone.
What happened here is that in November both the House and Senate
passed this bill by substantial margins. In the Senate it was 69 to 30.
In this House we voted 246 to 182 not to recommit the bill.
Since November we have been thwarted from going to conference with
the Senate. I have never seen it take this long to go to conference,
and I have never seen this have to stay around to get rules, votes,
have all these procedural things. We have had this argument over and
over and over and over and over again, and I find it really incredible
that just to go to conference with the Senate on this bill, we are
having to go through all these hurdles again.
Are American women's rights that vulnerable? Apparently so, because I
do not think we would play around with other bills and other rights,
and at some point people say the majority have spoken, the majority
have spoken clearly, and that we ought to proceed.
So tonight, that is what I am trying to say. The majority has spoken.
We ought to proceed. We ought to get on to conference with the Senate,
and we ought to be saying to American women, yes, they have the right
to go to clinics for their health care. The majority of women of
childbearing age get their health care in these clinics. That is where
they go for all their health care. When we did a survey or a survey was
done by another group, over 50 percent of the clinics have been
harassed or surrounded or had acts of violence. This has gone on and on
and on. I can read some of these horrendous acts of violence. They have
been very, very, very, very serious.
So, Mr. Speaker, tonight I am not trying to delay this bill. I am
trying to move this bill, and I certainly hope we can get on with it,
because I think America's women are getting very impatient with this
and feel that it is time that their rights be given as much respect as
everyone else's rights have been given, as they have debated and
debated and tied up and tried to do everything they could to thwart
this bill that has had such strong majority support in both legislative
bodies in this Capitol.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that the majority party in any
legislative body controls the schedule. The reason that this issue has
not come up until now is because the majority party has elected not to
bring it up until now. The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary
could have had the committee pass what is called a rule XX motion,
which would have given him the authority to come to the floor to move
to send this bill to conference without having to go to the Committee
on Rules and without having this kind of a restrictive rule situation.
He chose not to do so, even though the committee has met several
times. So aside from one objection that was made a couple weeks ago by
the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. Smith] any delay is solely the
responsibility of the majority party because, their Speakers who sit in
the chair do not recognize Republicans for making procedural motions to
advance bills.
Now, secondly, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] who is
very eloquent, talked about different strokes for different folks.
People who obstruct the entrances to businesses on the picket line
during labor disputes are charged with an unfair labor practice. That
is entirely different than charging people who physically obstruct an
abortion clinic with a felony.
Now, it seems to me that obstruction is obstruction. And if the
business that is being obstructed is something that does something else
besides provide abortions, they end up getting an unfair labor practice
charge put against them, and whatever penalties flow from that.
But if you obstruct an abortion clinic, not only are you subjected to
potential felonies, but also you are subjected to a new Federal civil
cause of action that is established in this bill, with treble damages,
plus the existing RICO suits, plus whatever state criminal and civil
penalties lie, and I think that is a bit of overkill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Missouri, [Mr. Talent].
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentlewoman got up a while ago.
I was going to ask if she would yield on her time. I will yield to her
now.
Mr. Speaker, there is a subject that interests me, the whole question
of why we do not apply these kinds of remedies to other kinds of picket
line violence. The gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] mentioned
the Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act. I do not understand
the gentlewoman to be saying that there is anything like Federal
protection for people who want to cross picket lines set up outside
labor disputes. There is nothing like that currently today, nothing
that is similar to what this law would provide for people crossing
protesting lines to go into clinics. The gentlewoman is not claiming
the two schemes of regulation are similar?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, in a way,
yes, I am. What I said is the Federal Government intervenes when it
appears that at the local level they cannot handle these felonies. If
there is violence on any labor picket line, obviously it can be a
felony in any state court, and there has been absolutely no indication
that state courts are not able to handle this.
The issue here is in many places state courts have not been able to
handle this, as we found in racial issues and as we have found in
voting issues in some parts of the country.
{time} 2000
So what we have is, this bill does not preempt the state if they are
able to deal with this. But what happens is it gives federal help, if
they cannot enforce these national constitutional rights. We get our
constitutional rights from being national citizens.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the gentlewoman is switching
a little bit. Now she is not saying that we do the same things in the
labor law. She is saying we do not do the same things in labor law,
because there the state courts are able to handle the situation.
Let me relate to the gentlewoman my experience. I practiced labor
management law for about 10 years at home in St. Louis. I handled on my
own at least a half-dozen cases where we had to try and go to the state
courts to get an injunction to protect against exactly the kind of
harassment that the gentlewoman is claiming is occurring here. It is
very common to block ingress or egress, very common to engage, if there
are threats, very common to have threats of physical violence. And
often, if the strike goes on long enough, actually to have physical
violence.
To say that the state courts are able to handle that and are not able
to handle this, I just do not think that is correct. It seems to me if
it justifies involvement, federalizing this area for this kind of
violence, it justifies federalizing it for labor laws. And we have not
done that.
The provision the gentlewoman mentioned applies only if we show the
union was responsible. If it is just picket line violence, the Federal
Government has no basis for intervening.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
I think almost every state in the Union has very strong criminal
penalties against violence. Violence is violence is violence, whether
it is picket line violence or any other kind of violence. But what has
happened, and I am surprised that Missouri is not, I am sure if the
gentleman means Missouri is not handling it, if they are not, maybe he
should move on this, but what has happened here is we have had
extensive hearings in our Subcommittee on Civil Rights a couple years
ago showing there are regions of the country that absolutely have not
been able to handle this kind of violence. As I say, 33,000 arrests are
a lot, and they have totally shut down clinics.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is saying that it indicates
they are not able to handle it. It may indicate that they are able to
handle it, and they are arresting a lot of people and that they are
very interested and are enforcing these laws. We could never get the
police to make those kinds of arrests typically on labor picket lines
because of the nature of the situation.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Then the gentleman should offer that kind of an
amendment or offer that kind of a bill. But I have not heard that that
has broken down nationwide, and almost everybody who really looks at
this fairly understands there are certain parts of this country where
there is not a family planning clinic.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman knows that under the rule I
would not have been permitted to offer that amendment. I did not go to
the Committee on Rules.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I said ``bill.'' I corrected the record. But we do
not try and bring a bill out that corrects every evil. This is very
specifically directed. This House has dealt with this over and over
again. And what we have seen is regions that are not doing it. And the
regions that can handle it, fine. But it is just like our problems we
have had with racial justice. It is like our problems that we have had
in other areas, as this country tries to keep saying, ``You get your
rights because of your national citizenship.'' And if the states cannot
help, then we have a duty to move in. But we do not do it unless it
appears the states cannot handle it.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]
were here, it might be better to direct these questions to him,
although I do not know how involved the gentlewoman was. Were hearings
held on the amount of violence in other areas and whether the local
authorities were as able to handle that? Does the gentlewoman know
whether the committee went into that?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Yes. The committee did have those kind of hearings.
And actually, not only his committee, but the Subcommittee on Civil and
Constitutional Rights had them a couple years ago and not long ago.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the motion
to go to conference on S. 636, the Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act and in opposition to any efforts to delay the conference
of this important bill.
S. 636 would guarantee the protection of rights for people on both
sides of the abortion issue to engage in peaceful protest. The bill
also would extend protection for women seeking access to reproductive
health services legally available to them and for providers who offer
those reproductive health services.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act would provide for the
imposition of civil and criminal penalties on individuals who
intentionally prevent other individuals from entering or exiting a
reproductive health facility. This bill is necessary because abortion
issue extremists have too often overstepped their constitutionally
protected rights of free speech and assembly and acted illegally,
impeding and obstructing the constitutional rights of others.
S. 636 would explicitly protect constitutional rights by preserving
the freedom to peacefully demonstrate under the first amendment at
clinics. This bill would not prohibit or punish lawful activity such as
the passing out of leaflets, praying in front of clinics, picketing,
and other protesting without force, threat of force, or physical
obstruction. The bill does prohibit the use or threat of force at
clinic entrances.
Last November, the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed the Freedom
of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. The time has come for Congress to
move forward with final consideration of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose any efforts to further
delay action on S. 636 and to vote in favor of sending S. 636 to
conference.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for
Mr. Sensenbrenner's motion to instruct conferees.
This motion would instruct conferees to agree to language that
extends this bill's protection to places of worship and the worshipers
in them.
While violence at abortion clinics has risen in the last year, so has
violence directed at places of worship, especially when members of the
congregation have been exercising their first amendment right of free
speech.
In January 1992, a home for unwed mothers called Our Father's House
was burned to the ground. Later that year, when Cardinal Mahoney
visited a church in Los Angeles, protesters splashed red paint all over
the church walls and entry ways. Posters with the Cardinal's picture
and the words ``Mahoney is a murderer'' were pasted up and almost
impossible to remove. In McLean, VA, the Temple Rodef Shalom had anti-
Semitic obscenities spray painted in red across the front of the
building.
These are but a few examples of what is happening across the country.
Places of worship are being vandalized, desecrated, and robbed.
It seems to me that as we pass a bill that provides protection from
interference for those seeking an abortion, we can do no less than to
also provide protection from violence and interference for those
Americans of all religious persuasions who seek to exercise their first
amendment right of religious freedom.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Sensenbrenner motion to instruct
conferees. It is a vote in support of religious freedom and a vote to
protect America's places of worship.
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this is not about abortion, or the right to
choose. It is about protecting patients and health care providers from
the rapidly escalating violence that we have been witnessing at
reproductive health clinics around the country.
Over the past 10 years we have seen over 1,000 incidents of violence
and almost 500 blockades--not peaceful demonstrations--at reproductive
health care facilities. Yet, State and local laws have not been enough
to address the scope of the problem.
This bill gives the Federal Government the power to act when--and
only when--protestors go beyond the lawful expression of their views
and resort to acts of violence against those with whom they do not
agree. It does not violate anyone's right to free speech or to
demonstrate peacefully.
I respect the rights of those who believe that abortion is wrong.
However, I also support a woman's right to access the complete range of
reproductive health services, and the right of health care providers to
render these services--without being assaulted or harassed.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act passed both Houses of
Congress--overwhelmingly--during the last session of Congress. This
bill is necessary. This bill is overdue. It is time to go to conference
so that it can become law.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of sending the Freedom of
Access to Clinic Entrances Act [FACE] to conference. This legislation,
S. 636, is designed to prevent the increasing violence that has
accompanied the debate over a woman's fundamental right to critical
health care services, including reproductive health care services.
The overwhelming support for this legislation in both chambers
signifies that the escalating level of nationwide violence at health
care facilities is unacceptable to a majority of Americans. Regardless
of viewpoint, murder, arson, bombing, and vandalism are unacceptable.
In a 15-year period ending last year, 1,000 acts of violence against
providers of reproductive health services were reported. Sixteen
clinics were burned. Almost one-quarter of reproductive health clinics
surveyed reported staff resignations as a direct result of the
violence. This legislation is vital and necessary to protect both
rights and lives.
This bill does not prevent individuals from exercising their First
amendment rights. It does not prevent lawful picketing or protest
without force. But it does not prevent free speech. And it does not
prevent peaceful protest. It does prevent forceful, threatening acts
which would clearly deny a woman her right of access to reproductive
health services.
I urge my colleagues to vote to send the Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act to conference so that we, as a legislative body, can
provide a legal venue to halt this epidemic of violence.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out vocally
in support of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. This
legislation is long overdue.
My home State of Florida has seen the kinds of destruction that
violent antiabortion protesters can unleash. Dr. David Gunn was shot
because he provided a necessary medical service to Florida's women.
There can be no justification for this kind of violence.
Women too often face physical and physiological harassment when they
step inside a reproductive health clinic. Clinic staff also threatened
by the actions of antiabortion protesters. Numerous clinics nationwide
have been vandalized, set on fire, and bombed this past year. These
clinics provide more than just abortion services, they provide basic
health care needs for thousands of women every day. Access to these
services cannot be denied.
Abortion is a woman's right in this Nation. Her access and physical
well-being cannot be allowed to be threatened in this most difficult
time.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleagues in voicing strong
support for sending H.R. 796 to conference committee.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act will send a clear
message to the American people that shootings, arson, and physical
threats are neither appropriate nor legitimate means of expressing
political and moral differences.
This law will protect a woman's constitutional right to privately,
freely, and safely choose abortion if she so chooses. H.R. 796 achieves
this without impeding on the rights of those who choose to peacefully
picket or demonstrate.
Last December, a clinic in my district, the Choice Medical Group, won
a preliminary injunction that keeps protesters off clinic property.
Since then, the entrance to the clinic is only used by people coming to
use medical services. Ms. Genevieve Grein, certified nurse practitioner
and clinic administrator told me that she is awed by the difference
this has made for patients arriving at the clinic. Patients can now
drive into clinic grounds past the protesters and arrive relatively
calm and relaxed instead of traumatized, in tears, and highly stressed.
This is the way it should be for all woman visiting a clinic.
Since David Gunn was murdered, special arrangements have to be made
when doctors visit the clinic. The injunction has relieved anxiety for
doctors and clinic employees.
I believe that H.R. 796 will bring much needed relief and protection
to the constitutional rights of women in our Nation.
Mr. PENNY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the freedom of access
to clinic entrances bill. I do not support abortion and have
consistently voted against legislation authorizing abortions. In spite
of my strong pro-life convictions, however, I recognize the right of
abortion-rights activists to march and peaceably demonstrate. If they
should break the law while protesting they should be penalized to the
same extent as any other offender.
I oppose this bill because it punishes those protesting abortion out
of proportion to other civil disobedience crimes. Under FACE, the
motivation of the person or cause for which they demonstrate, as
opposed to the action itself, determines whether a felony has been
committed. This bill targets a specific activity whose sole objective
is to exercise a right to political speech. Clearly, a demonstrator who
violates the law should be held accountable and punished. But his or
her criminal liability should not hinge upon which side of the public
debate they happen to fall.
My strongest conviction, perhaps, is to enlarge the spectrum of
public debate. This bill threatens to inhibit the expression of free
speech, a dangerous precedent for Congress to set on an issue embedded
in the hearts of so many Americans.
The Sensenbrenner Motion to Instruct advocates expanding this group
of felonies to include protesters that restrict access to a place of
religious worship. Again, a group of protesters at a specific locale
would be charged with a more severe crime based on the location of the
offense.
The first amendment has played a critical role in our development as
a nation. Any attempt to limit this fundamental right must carefully
weigh the discourse's potential damage against the harm restricting
speech will cause to the public good. Neither the freedom of access to
clinic entrances bill nor the Sensenbrenner amendment consider the toll
they will take on our treasured first amendment rights.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Studds). The time of the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] has expired.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone for their indulgence,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the amendment and on the bill.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the
third time.
motion to commit offered by mr. smith of new jersey
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Smith of New Jersey moves to commit Senate 636, as
amended, to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to commit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. 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.
The Chair announces that, pursuant the provisions of clause 5 of rule
XV, 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 passage.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 168,
nays 233, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 69]
YEAS--168
Allard
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Browder
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Fish
Gallegly
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kyl
LaFalce
Leach
Levy
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McKeon
McMillan
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moorhead
Murtha
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
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
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
Whitten
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--233
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
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
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Inslee
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
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
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCurdy
McHale
McInnis
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
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
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sawyer
Schenk
Schiff
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
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Washington
Waters
Waxman
Wheat
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--32
Brown (CA)
Collins (IL)
Costello
Dooley
Farr
Fazio
Fowler
Gallo
Grandy
Green
Hastert
Hastings
Jefferson
Johnston
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Livingston
Manton
Martinez
McCloskey
McDermott
Meek
Mfume
Michel
Murphy
Natcher
Rostenkowski
Schaefer
Skelton
Torres
Tucker
Watt
{time} 2025
Mr. GREENWOOD and Mr. MINGE changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to commit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Studds). The question is on the passage
of the Senate bill, as amended.
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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237,
noes 169, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 70]
AYES--237
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Boehlert
Bonior
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
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
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Dunn
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)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Inslee
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kleczka
Klein
Klug
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCurdy
McHale
McInnis
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
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
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sawyer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shays
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Snowe
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Thomas (CA)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Washington
Waters
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--169
Allard
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Browder
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Fish
Gallegly
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kyl
LaFalce
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McKeon
McMillan
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moorhead
Murtha
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
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sundquist
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (WY)
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--27
Brown (CA)
Collins (IL)
Farr
Fowler
Gallo
Grandy
Green
Hastert
Hastings
Jefferson
Johnston
Linder
Livingston
Manton
Martinez
McDermott
Meek
Mfume
Michel
Murphy
Natcher
Rostenkowski
Schaefer
Skelton
Torres
Tucker
Watt
{time} 2033
So the Senate bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
title amendment offered by mrs. schroeder
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the title.
The Clerk read as follows:
Title amendment offered by Mrs. Schroededr: The title of
the Senate bill is amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend
title 18, United States Code, to assure freedom of access to
reproductive services.''
The title amendment was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
motion offered by mrs. schroeder
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 374, I
offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Schroeder moves that the House insist on its
amendments to S. 636 and request a conference with the Senate
thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Studds). The gentlewoman from Colorado
[Mrs. Schroeder] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, because of the prior agreement and,
hopefully, the momentum that we are gaining on this, I yield for the
purpose of debate only 30 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Sensenbrenner] and yield myself the remaining 30 minutes for purpose of
debate only, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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, at the outset let me say that we do not intend taking
our full time.
Let me make a couple of very brief points. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am
very saddened and deeply disappointed that the Committee on the
Judiciary and Members on the other side of the aisle and on our side,
to some extent, have embraced language in this bill that turns acts of
nonviolent civil disobedience into felonies with heavy jail time and
massive criminal and civil fines.
This bill represents an abuse of police power and is unprecedented in
its attempt to obliterate and crush dissent by pro-lifers at abortion
mills.
Let me just remind Members about what we are about here: This
legislation will make a Federal felony for those persons who just
merely attempt, who merely attempt to obstruct or in some way interfere
at an abortion clinic. Holding a sign in one's hand on a sidewalk with
15 or 20 people perhaps could easily be misconstrued to be obstruction,
actionable under this piece of legislation, unprecedented abuse of
police powers.
Mr. Speaker, the other day Mother Teresa made a very strong statement
at the National Prayer Breakfast. She said, and I quote:
Please don't destroy the child. We will take the child. So
we always have someone to tell the mother in trouble, come
and we will take care of you, we will give you a home for
your child. Please don't kill the child. I want the child.
Give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would
be aborted and give that child to a married couple who will
love and cherish that child.
She went on to point out that they have saved some 3,000 children in
Calcutta alone.
Right now there are sidewalk counselors and tens of thousands of
people throughout the country who regularly go to abortion mills with
nothing but compassion in their hearts, nothing but love for the woman
who is on her way to get that abortion. They stand there, sidewalk
counseling, perhaps holding a picket sign, perhaps giving out some
literature and information where she can get positive alternatives to
abortion. And in these instances, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will
give the abortionist, those who work there and perhaps those women who
want to take this action, those who are on their way to get an
abortion, the ability to throw these people into jail for 3 years, 3
years for simply getting in the way.
Again, getting in the way is in the eyes of the beholder. It is very
easy to say that person ``was in my way.''
I could go stand at that door right now, Mr. Speaker, right now with
4 other Members, and someone could say, ``I can't get out that door.''
That action at an abortion clinic would be actionable. This is unfair,
an abuse of power, and the only reason we have had these series of
votes is to underscore just how patently unfair and wrong this
legislation is.
I say go after the bombers, go after those who commit violence, and
all of us are, hopefully, dead set against that. We are talking about
peaceful, nonviolent demonstrators.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Georgia.
(Ms. McKINNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Freedom of
Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
Repeatedly, those opposed to H.R. 796 have said that never before has
someone become a felon simply by blocking an entrance.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the reality is that women, clinic workers, doctors
and their families brave bullies at their homes and offices every day.
This bill is directed at terrorists and their malicious acts of
violence. These individuals are blocking real live Americans from
exercising their constitutional rights.
Terrorists harass women throughout Georgia and the United States
going into health clinics--regardless of whether they are at the clinic
for an abortion, family planning, or a PAP smear.
We cannot stand by and allow Americans to endure this terrorism day
in and day out.
I encourage my colleagues to support the rule for the Freedom of
Access to Clinic Entrances bill.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Studds). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. 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.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 166, not voting 39, as follows:
[Roll No. 71]
YEAS--228
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Bacchus (FL)
Barca
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
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
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hefner
Hilliard
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hughes
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kleczka
Klug
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McHale
McInnis
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Montgomery
Morella
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Ridge
Roemer
Rose
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sawyer
Schenk
Schiff
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
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--166
Allard
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Browder
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Fish
Gekas
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kyl
LaFalce
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McKeon
McMillan
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
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
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
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--39
Baesler
Brown (CA)
Collins (IL)
Dicks
Farr
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Fowler
Gallegly
Gallo
Grandy
Green
Hastings
Hinchey
Hoyer
Johnston
Klein
Linder
Livingston
Manton
Martinez
McCandless
McDermott
Meek
Meyers
Mfume
Michel
Moran
Murphy
Natcher
Oxley
Pickle
Rostenkowski
Roukema
Schaefer
Skelton
Tucker
Watt
Yates
{time} 2058
Mr. KANJORSKI and Mr. GINGRICH changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
motion to instruct conferees offered by mr. sensenbrenner
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin moves that the Managers on
the part of the House, at the Conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the bill S. 636, Freedom of Access
to Clinic Entrances Act of 1993, be instructed to agree to
the Senate Amendment No. 1190 (known as the ``Hatch
Amendment'') regarding the protection of religious
institutions and the First Amendment rights of those who
worship within them.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Studds). The gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Sensenbrenner] is recognized for 30 minutes.
Does the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] seek recognition
in opposition to the motion?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recognized in
response to the gentleman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs.
Schroeder] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Sensenbrenner].
{time} 2100
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, when the Senate considered this
legislation, that body adopted an amendment offered by the Senator from
Utah [Mr. Hatch], which would apply the same penalties contained in the
FACE legislation to those who obstruct religious services, meaning
there is an exact same symmetry between the penalties contained in FACE
for obstruction of abortion clinics as those who would invade church
sanctuaries during the conduct of religious services and prevent the
officiants from conducting the services according to the structures of
their own religious denomination. The free exercise of religion is
protected by the first amendment.
This legislation made sure that those who choose to interrupt and
interfere with those who wish to avail themselves of their first
amendment rights to freely exercise their religion will be able to be
prosecuted and subject themselves to the same type of civil and
criminal penalties as those who obstruct abortion clinics.
I urge support of this motion to instruct.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me, and I thank him for being so quick.
I just want to say I am going to vote for the motion of the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] to instruct conferees. I know many
of the Members who support FACE will do this. We did not oppose the
concept behind the Hatch amendment, because we believe churches,
synagogues and other places used primarily for religious worship
deserve protection from violence and threats of violence.
Mr. Hatch and Mr. Kennedy reserved the right to make sure the
language was correct, and I am sure the gentleman will want to work on
that, too, so we want to make sure that that is possible, as we go into
conference. But I think we are all in agreement on that.
I thank the gentleman for calling this to our attention.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dornan].
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, as Gomer Pyle used to say, ``Surprise,
surprise, surprise.''
I guess Members on both sides of the aisle, those who have made
abortion at all cost a personal, living commitment and mirror religion,
in some cases, a religion, have decided they do not want to face, as
Senators who represent whole geographical entities called States do, do
not want to go back and face people who are sick and tired of seeing
synagogues smeared with ugly Nazi symbols. I was going to call this the
St. Patrick's Cathedral amendment. And all of a sudden, the other side
has caved, because I sense that they were going to lose this, too.
There is so much fright going on with this issue. But I am not going
to give up this opportunity to do what I did earlier and show some
Members, like the few that were on the floor, what my 12-year-old
grandchild, Ricky Cobban, found in the Virginia C&P phone book yellow
pages under the green coupon section. It is a coupon to get 5 percent
off an abortion, and abortion is listed first, 5 percent off an
abortion. My 12-year-old grandchild ripped this out and said, ``Can you
use this in a speech, Poppy?''
I have kept that promise twice today. Let me point out why we are not
through debating abortion on this House now or ever.
Bishop Daley, the good RC Bishop up in Brooklyn, said the reason that
our country is invested with violence is because when we tell mothers
they can kill babies in their wombs and do it behind their parent's
back, if they are teenagers, and do it with Federal dollars, which we
are going to be fighting here forever also, that we will always have a
country of violence. And when Mother Teresa, and I know some would like
to see her go away, tells Americans, this tiny little, 90-pound
Albanian born lady, that this is the greatest destroyer of peace, she
is warning us that this great, beautiful Nation, from sea to shining
sea, is always, always going to be a land of violence.
When a person who did not deserve to be bushwhacked in the back by
some espousing pro-lifer who had lost it, Michael Griffin, who will pay
with the rest of his life in some slimy jail fighting off male rape,
that doctor had killed or was about to kill 10, 20 children in their
mothers' wombs that day, 4,500 people died that day and the dominant
media culture went ape squat over the abortionist.
What about the death toll every second, every minute, every hour in
this country, 30 million dead Americans?
I will close on this: The American women, a lot of reference to that,
it is American women that drive the pro-life movement and that lay
their bodies down in front of those clinics, not men, the women, 90
percent, God bless them, female Americans protecting motherhood and
innocent human life.
Have a nice St. Patrick's Day. God before me. Jesus behind me.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following correspondence
for the Record.
December 20, 1993.
Meg Greenfield,
Editorial Page Editor, The Washington Post, Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Greenfield: Both Robert D. Novak and George F.
Will in columns published on the op-ed page (``Inviolable
Clinics . . . Vulnerable Churches,'' December 9, 1993)
suggest that gay lobbying groups were responsible for the
delay in Congressional enactment of the clinic access bill in
the closing days of the recent Congressional term. Mr. Novak
and Mr. Will claim that Senator Orrin Hatch's amendment
applying penalties to protesters who obstruct access to
churches was blocked by gay lobbyists. This charge is
completely untrue.
Before Senator Hatch's amendment was ever discussed, both
the Human Rights Campaign Fund and the National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force encouraged Senators to support the clinic
access bill without amendments. While some individual members
of the gay community may hold differing views, the only two
national gay lobbying groups made it clear to supporters of
the bill that they would accept inclusion of the Hatch
language.
Mr. Novak quotes Senator Hatch as saying ``I am certain
that the homosexual lobby was involved here,'' but he is
wrong. The Hatch Amendment is acceptable because it protects
the religious freedom of gays and non-gays alike.
Opponents of the clinic access bill appear to be attempting
to create divisions where they do not exist. The pro-choice
community and the gay and lesbian community share a mutual
goal of guaranteeing Americans the opportunity to exercise
their constitutionally protected rights. We urge and expect
the Congress to complete the conference in January and the
President to sign the clinic access bill.
Sincerely,
Tim McFeeley,
Executive Director, Human Rights Campaign Fund.
Kate Michelman,
President, National Abortion Rights, Action League.
Pamela J. Maraldo,
President, Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Peri Jude Radecic,
Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the motion to instruct.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Studds). The question is on the motion
to instruct offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Sensenbrenner].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 398,
noes 2, not voting 33, as follows:
[Roll No. 72]
AYES--398
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blackwell
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burton
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Fingerhut
Fish
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Ridge
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sharp
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Unsoeld
Upton
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Washington
Waters
Waxman
Weldon
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--2
Nadler
Penny
NOT VOTING--33
Baesler
Bunning
Collins (IL)
Cox
Farr
Ford (MI)
Fowler
Gallegly
Gallo
Grandy
Green
Hastings
Johnson (CT)
Johnston
Linder
Livingston
Manton
Martinez
McDermott
Meek
Mfume
Michel
Murphy
Natcher
Pickle
Rostenkowski
Schaefer
Skelton
Smith (OR)
Sundquist
Tucker
Watt
Yates
{time} 2127
Mr. NADLER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hilliard). Without objection, the Chair
appoints the following conferees on S. 636, the Freedom of Access to
Clinic Entrances Act:
Suggested conferees on S. 7636, Freedom of Access to Clinc Entrances
Act.
From the Committee on the Judiciary: Messrs. Brooks, Schumer, Edwards
of California, and Conyers, Mrs. Schroeder, and Messrs. Sensenbrenner,
Hyde, and Canady.
From the Committee on Energy and Commerce: Messrs. Dingell, Waxman,
Synar, Moorhead, and Bliley.
There was no objection.
____________________