[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.

                          ____________________