[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 53 (Thursday, May 5, 1994)] [House] [Page H] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [Congressional Record: May 5, 1994] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 636, FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINIC ENTRANCES ACT OF 1994 Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 417 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 417 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 636) to amend the Public Health Service Act to permit individuals to have freedom of access to certain medical clinics and facilities, and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). The gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] is recognized for 1 hour. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes of debate time to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 417 provides for the consideration of the conference report on S. 636, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1993. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. This waiver is required by two items in the conference report. First there is a nongermane Senate amendment; that is the Hatch amendment which applied the bill's protections to churches and synagogues. While this amendment may technically be nongermane to the House bill, the House voted 398 to 2 on March 17 to instruct the conferees to agree to this amendment. The second provision requiring a waiver is a severability clause included in the conference report which states: If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby. As my Rules Committee colleague from Florida said yesterday, this is a standard ``boilerplate'' severability clause; similar language has been included in a wide variety of laws including: The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Restoration Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Education for Economic Security Act, and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. The severability language does not change any provision of the House bill, but merely preserves the remaining protections the House passed in the unlikely event that one provision is found to be unconstitutional. The rule further provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, the conference report on S. 636, the bill for which the committee has recommended this rule, is legislation to protect women, their doctors and health clinic staff from systematic, orchestrated violence at reproductive health centers around the country. By now, we have all heard supporters of this bill repeat the horrible statistics over and over: Bombings, arson, death threats, assaults, kidnappings, clinic ``invasions'' and murder--all in service of an orchestrated campaign to deny women reproductive choice, at any cost. Last November, this House passed this legislation to provide a Federal remedy for this national crisis. State and local law enforcement often lack the resources--and sometimes lack the will--to battle large-scale, long-term operations that include trespassing, vandalism, and assault. I am disappointed that it has taken us 7 months since the House first passed this bill, to get to this point. But I will say that events in the intervening months have helped make the case for this legislation even stronger: The conviction of the Florida assassin who killed Dr. David Gunn; the interrogation of a suspect in another attack on a doctor provided the first inside look at a national conspiracy of violence; and the Supreme Court approved the use of the RICO statute to combat this network of terror. S. 636 includes strong protection of the individual's right to free speech. That's why the ACLU endorses it. As does this National Association of Attorneys General; the American Medical Association; and the League of Women Voters, among others. They endorse this bill because it is a carefully crafted measure that will help put a stop to the injuries and deaths of innocent women and their health care providers. The will of this House has been expressed twice now, in overwhelming support of S. 636. I urge my colleagues to put an end to these delaying tactics, pass the rule and vote yes on final passage. Federal protection for women and their reproductive health needs is long overdue. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) {time} 1710 Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, today's debate marks round three on this highly controversial bill--a bill that now creates two new, special categories of behavior that will be subject to Federal criminal and civil remedies; two new, special categories of facilities that will have special protection under Federal law preempting States rights, as it were. Unfortunately, this bill is not subject to the much-lauded concept of ``three strikes and you're out''--many of us believe it should be. Originally this bill was targeted solely at those who protest legally or illegally outside of reproductive health clinics. In an effort to underscore the arbitrary nature of this legislation, churches and other places of worship were added as a second protected class in the hopes that the bill's supporters would see the problem with their proposal. Yet, here we are--now with both classes protected. Mr. Speaker, we all should have learned a very long time ago that two wrongs will not make it right--I don't believe we should be federalizing places of worship or reproductive health clinics. While we all share an abhorrence of violence in any setting--including specifically those involving abortion protests--I firmly believe that this bill is unnecessary, because we already have laws on the books that prohibit acts of violence, wherever they may occur. Quite simply, we don't need new laws, we need better enforcement of the laws we already have. But this bill is worse than just unnecessary--it also sets a terrible precedent by singling out special classes of people, certain speech and behavior for extra Federal restrictions. I am absolutely convinced this bill will become a major profit center for attorneys; it invites litigation because it is overbroad and more particularly because plaintiffs have nothing to lose. If plaintiffs win their case they can recoup their legal costs, but if they lose, they face no risk since the defendant is not given similar recourse to be reimbursed for legal costs. This is a grossly unfair provision that virtually ensures a landslide of frivolous claims. Mr. Speaker, this legislation treads heavily on the Constitution--a point even its proponents must recognize, since they have now added a brand new provision--one designed to make it harder for their bill to be struck down on a constitutional challenge. The Rules Committee was asked to grant a waiver to this conference report, in part because the so-called boiler-plate ``severability'' clause added to the bill was not in the House version of the proposal from the other body. In case anybody in this House is interested, such a ``scope'' violation is against the standing rules of this House. Mr. Speaker, this may be the most un-American legislation I've witnessed in my time here. It places good American citizens with one set of beliefs at severe disadvantage to good American citizens with differing beliefs. It takes away more freedom from one group than another. And then it intentionally tilts the scales of justice to the distinct advantage of one group at the distinct expense to another. There is no fair-play here. I find myself disgusted and frustrated that we cannot find a fairer and more workable response to the specific, high-profile, totally deplorable acts of violence at clinics or elsewhere, acts that we all condemn. I know that resorting to heavy-handed, one-sided, over-kill legislation to repair what is essentially an enforcement problem will lead to trouble and adverse unintended consequences. It always does. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and the conference report on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances bill. The issue of ensuring women's access to abortion clinics has been debated in Congress long enough. It is time, Mr. Speaker, to give women the protection they deserve under the Constitution. This bill will give our law enforcement officers the tools necessary to prevent blockades of clinics and to punish lawbreakers. Law enforcement at all levels is crying out for swift enactment of this bill--from Attorney General Reno on down to local police officers. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that this is not an issue of freedom speech, nor are many of the protesters in front of abortion clinics nonviolent as they claim. The frequency and danger of their acts have escalated alarmingly in recent years. Last year, they assaulted patients and staff, and shot and murdered doctors. I urge my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the unlawful activities waged by protesters at clinics. Vote yes on the rule and on the conference report on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances bill. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]. (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise in strong opposition to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. It is bad and misguided legislation. It is probably unconstitutional; a blatant violation of our first amendment rights. The Freedom of Access bill is wrong because it singles out one group--people who oppose abortion--and it establishes unduly harsh punishment for them--not for committing a crime--but because of their beliefs and their viewpoints. The Freedom of Access bill would make an individual's pro-life conviction a thought crime and it would put a congressional stamp of approval on the pro-abortion side of the debate. It is designed, not to prevent violence, but to discourage pro-life protests. The bill is clearly discriminatory from the word go. It targets pro- life activity only. Throughout our Nation's history, many groups supporting a variety of causes, have used peaceful protest and civil disobedience to advance their views. But FACE singles out only pro- lifers. In the sixties, before passage of the Civil Rights Act, there were sit-ins, pray-ins and protests all around the country. Some were peaceful. Some were not. In some circles, the civil rights movement was not very popular but Congress did not pass special laws to discourage civil rights protests because of their motivation or because of their viewpoint. Supporters of this bill and some in the media have tried to convince us that people who oppose abortion are violent and will use any means to further their cause--including murdering abortion doctors and bombing clinics. This is not true. The pro-life movement is overwhelmingly, predominated by peaceful, non-violent, deeply spiritual people who value the sanctity of all human life. These people have a right to an opinion on abortion. People have a right to oppose abortion. I know it is not politically correct but we still have that right. Accompanying that right is the right to organize and protest peacefully. But the Freedom of Access Act slashes those First Amendment rights to ribbons for people who oppose abortion and them alone. Yes, we should punish violence, threats of violence and intimidation. But this bill goes beyond that. It would punish people engaged in non- violent, free speech. It would create harsh new penalties for people who engage in non-violent civil disobedience. This bill makes no distinction between violent and non-violent protesters. Peaceful protesters are subject to the same harsh penalties as protesters who use force and the penalties are extreme. I am confident that this bill is so clearly unconstitutional that it will eventually be struck down by the courts. But it is sad to think how many people will waste years in prison unnecessarily and how many will be financially destroyed before that happens. As I have mentioned several times before, this bill comes close to home for me. My wife, two of my daughters and their families are deeply involved in Operation Rescue. Not one of them poses any threat of violence whatsoever. They are truly peaceful people. They just have strong feelings about abortion. And they are dedicating their lives to bringing an end to abortion. That is not and should not be a crime. My wife and daughters should have the same right to express their beliefs as any other citizen who is willing to take a stand on an issue that is important to them. They should not be made Federal criminals because of the motivations or the beliefs behind their actions. This is bad legislation and it will be a sad day of shame if it is enacted and we criminalize peaceful protest for a single cause, like abortion, just because that cause is not currently politically correct. {time} 1720 Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro]. Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today the House will take its final step on the long road to making sure that women across this country will have guaranteed access to providers of reproductive health services--access free from threats, intimidation or harassment--by passing the conference report on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. This bill guarantees freedom of access to reproductive health services without trampling on one of our most treasured and fundamental rights as Americans, free speech. We should not be detoured at this final juncture by the procedural concerns that have been raised about a provision in the conference report. That provision is routine. We should pass the rule and pass the conference report. It is outrageous that women and health care providers fear for their safety and that of their families when they seek or provide constitutionally protected reproductive health services. We have witnessed too many acts of violence, including murder, and too many threats of violence, hundreds of bomb threats and death threats. So the need for this legislation is clear. Mr. Speaker, today, let us begin to stop the killing, the violence, and the fear-mongering. Let us pass the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney]. Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and conference report on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Our civil rights are fundamental in this country, and the law should offer its full protection to anyone who wants to go anywhere it is legal to go. Most people would be outraged if they were prevented from entering a supermarket--or a church or an office building or any other place--by someone who disagreed with what was going on inside. We need this Freedom of Access bill because throughout our country, there continue to be bombings, assaults, threats, and even murders by people trying to prevent people from working in or using medical facilities which offer reproductive health services. In the previous Congress, the House passed the Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act, which prevents violent blockades of facilities for research animals. If we care that much about facilities for animals, we ought to care about facilities for women. The right to choose is meaningless without the access to choose. We ought not let technical disagreements--such as those over the severability clause--prevent us from acting to protect women and their health providers. Support the FACE bill and pass the rule to consider the conference report. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson]. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule and to the conference report of the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act. As I have stated before, I do not agree with the thrust of this legislation which targets one particular group supporting one side of an issue. This legislation treats the two sides of an issue differently by unfairly protecting one side from criminal penalties. This legislation is unfair. Also, this legislation raises serious questions about rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. If this conference report is enacted it will in effect make civil disobedience impossible in America. This bill discourages individuals who feel strongly about an issue from exercising their Constitutional rights. It should be noted that civil disobedience is the last resort of a powerless minority committed enough to a particular issue to vote with their bodies. If this bill is enacted, those wishing to engage in peaceful protests will have to do so in fear of violating Federal law. This legislation is unconstitutional. This legislation is unnecessary. It violates equal protection by penalizing people for their beliefs. Federal court injunctions are currently in place against non-peaceful demonstrations throughout the United States and ample relief is available in state courts. I do not condone violent protests, but peaceful protests are completely legal and are sanctioned by the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom to peaceably assemble. This bill will make federal felons out of concerned citizens. I urge a no vote on this unfair, unconstitutional, and unnecessary legislation. {time} 1730 Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, any resemblance between this piece of legislation and the rhetoric we have heard on the other side is entirely accidental. It may be the problem is that the bill is written in English, because some of my friends seem to have some trouble with the language as to what it means, not as to how it pronounces, I never criticize pronouncing, but as to what it means. For instance, we have just heard that the problem with this is that it is going to make activities illegal, and what activities are we told it is going to make illegal? Civil disobedience. I must tell the previous speaker that civil disobedience is by definition already illegal. If it is legal, it is not civil disobedience. That is what the word means. What does it deal with? It deals with the following only. You are guilty of a crime under this bill only if you have by force, by threat of force or by physical obstruction done certain things, and it defines physical obstruction. I assume my friends do not think that force or the threat of force against someone they do not like is a constitutional right. For them the question is, when we say physical obstruction, are we talking about interfering with peaceful protest? But the bill defines physical obstruction. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. GOSS. Is a clenched fist a threat of force? Mr. Frank of Massachusetts. From over there, no, it is not. It depends on the situation as the gentleman would know. A threat of force would be, and it is already illegal. If in fact you stand an inch from someone and shake a fist in the person's face, that could be the threat of force, particularly if you said, ``If you take one more step, I'm going to punch you.'' The gentleman may be familiar with an arcane legal concept known as assault. Assault is not actual touching. An assault is a threat under the law, so if the gentleman thinks that nothing short of physical contact should ever be a crime, he better get all the laws of assault repealed, because assault is a threat. Battery is the touching. Mr. Speaker, again the problem is, as I said, a certain misunderstanding of the law. We are talking only about force, the threat of force, or a physical obstruction which is defined, and it is very carefully defined, the term physical obstruction means rendering impassable ingress to or egress from, and that means going in or going out for people who might have a little trouble there. Physical obstruction means rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility. Yes, this bill says you cannot physically prevent people from going into an abortion clinic. No, you do not have a legal right to do that. No, there is not a First Amendment right physically to prevent people from going in. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The gentleman did not give the full definition. Could the gentleman define what unreasonably difficult means? Because that continues, and if unreasonably difficult applies, physical obstruction then applies, and then a person who simply is in the way of the door and the person can perhaps go around them could be construed to have violated this act and go to jail for a year and a half simply because they were unreasonably in the way. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Absolutely, I take back my time to say. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Would the gentleman define it? Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let us be clear what this does not deal with. Standing there with signs, saying things, trying to persuade people. Physically obstructing. Standing in the doorway, and I think if you stand in the doorway to try to force a woman to pass within a 3- inch space, that might be unreasonably obstructing. The gentleman asked for the definition, he is going to get it whether he likes or not. That could be making it unreasonably difficult. The fact is, and I am surprised at the gentleman, the purpose of these demonstrations in some cases is in fact physically to prevent people from going in and we say you cannot prevent people from physically going in. As to equal protection, that has no merit. What we are dealing with here is a situation where there has been a nationally organized movement, in many cases, to send large numbers of people into particular communities. I represent one town where because large numbers of people came from all over the place to physically blockade clinics, the town of Brookline that I represent, a national movement organized people and the town was faced with extraordinary police costs. Mr. Speaker, I think it is reasonable when the Federal Government says where a particular community is being the focal point of all this activity, we will step in, or situations where, not unknown in America in this situation or others, local police refuse to help, the Federal Government will step in. In situations where the local police are doing their job and they are not overwhelmed, that will be the situation and they will carry it out. But in instances where the local police are not protecting people or where local police are not able financially to deal with it, we say the Federal Government can come in. Mr. Speaker, if people want to defend the right of others physically to prevent people from going to abortion clinics, that is a rational position, although I disagree with it, but suggesting that this somehow criminalizes behavior that people would otherwise have a right to enforce or act is wrong. What it says is because of the pattern of national concentration in some areas, Wichita, Brookline, Massachusetts and elsewhere, or because of local non-enforcement, we will in this class of situations allow a Federal supplementary presence. Mr. Speaker, that is what we are talking about. We are not talking about making criminal anything that is protected. The bill clearly protects First Amendment rights. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to argue this too much. There are people on the other side who have not had a good word to say about the First Amendment in about 36 years. I am glad that they like the First Amendment today. I only hope they like it tomorrow and next week when we talk about other things, but I will take what I can get. Even an occasional good word about the First Amendment is a good thing, but they ought to understand it. The First Amendment is not standing in a doorway physically to prevent someone from going in. This bill explicitly and in its terms says a protected First Amendment activity is okay. What it says is if you threaten by force, if you used force or if you physically obstruct people from doing something that they have a constitutional legal right to do, you are violating the law. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he requires to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, there is a profound difference between the actions of those persons who employ violence or the threat of violence as a means to an end and those who engage in peaceful, nonviolent dissent such as pickets, sit-ins or perhaps even sidewalk counseling. The language of S. 636 blurs that distinction by making nonviolent acts of civil disobedience committed by pro-lifers by turning these people into Federal felons. Mr. Speaker, the point that the gentleman from Massachusetts made a moment ago about civil disobedience constituting an actionable offense is true. The problem that I have and many other Members have with this bill is with the punishments that are meted out are way out of line and are patently unfair. Nonviolent sit-ins are misdemeanors not felonies. Someone who engages in nonviolent civil disobedience might go to jail for a day or two or three and receive a fine. Under this legislation, however, they are hit with a massive fine, the person who contends that they have been offended can sucessfully sue them for an excessive amount of money and they can go to jail for a year and a half simply for sitting in front of a door or on the sidewalk. That is an excessive punishment. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate his understanding of this which some others have not had, namely that he agrees and I agree, we are not here trying to make anything illegal which would otherwise be legal. We are disagreed at what level it should be accepted. We now have agreement, we are not making anything illegal that would otherwise be legal. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, it goes further than that. There would be many actions that would be very easily construed to be illegal under the bill. People walking and picketing in front of a clinic and clinics where sidewalks are next to the accessway, where actions will be brought because an abortionist will construe this to be a violation and initiate federal action. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there are always some remote possibilities that an ill-intentioned law enforcement officer will take the words of any criminal statute and abuse them. There is always the possibility that casually involved people will be given the maximum on the first offense. We know that very rarely happens. {time} 1740 What the gentleman is suggesting is that people who are innocently walking by and might be swept up in it would be inappropriately punished by a law enforcement officer and given the maximum. I think that is highly unlikely, especially when what we have is a pattern in which we are not talking about innocent observers who happen to get caught up, we are not talking about people who simply say what they want to say. There has been an organized, coordinated, explicit, self- described national movement that says we will physically keep you from going in, and that is what this bill is aimed at. I think, no matter how it is worded, the gentleman would be opposed to it. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I make the point that those who are strongly against the violence, and that includes this particular Member and every Member on the pro-life side, we had a substitute that was considered last November which said those who commit acts of violence ought to go to jail big time. Clearly we ought to mete out a very serious punishment to those people. The difference in what we are dealing with today are those acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, and I can tell you Mr. Speaker, if we applied the standard in this bill to those who have been involved in D.C. statehood, civil rights, women's rights, animal rights, and a whole host of other very important causes, this particular legislation would never see the light of day on this floor. Mr. Speaker, just let me also make a very important point: that sidewalk counseling has saved tens of thousands of children throughout the last 20 years. Women, many of whom have had abortions frequently become sidewalk counselors and go to abortion clinics to speak out. These women, and I have pictures of women who have helped women through the difficult, distressful pregnancies they may be experiencing, they have helped women about to abort at that 11th hour. When everyone else was saying it is a go for the abortion they said, wait, stop, think about it, perhaps go back. There are alternatives that are nonviolent nurturing and caring. There are alternatives to dismemberment of an unborn child by a hideous suction machine that has a razor-blade tip and has a vacuum capacity of about 20 to 30 vacuum cleaners that literally dismembers the babies. There are alternatives to chemical shots which literally poison the body of an unborn child, inflicting excruciatingly pain and suffering and ultimately death on an innocent boy or girl. A sickening form of child abuse going on in abortion clinics, Mr. Speaker, and people are outside because they are motivated by the fact those children will die if they do not go out and make some kind of protest and dissent and reach out a loving and helping hand to those women. Pro-life advocates, under this legislation, will be construed to be felons, and I can guarantee, Mr. Speaker, that if this particular bill survives a constitutional test, more babies will die. The tens of thousands of children who might otherwise be saved will not be. The mothers who might have averted a preventable tragedy, will not. For those who would have been at the abortion clinic that day, to make a last-minute appeal at the 11th hour, many of those people will not be there anymore. In a gross miscarriage of justice they will be in jail. They will be trying to defend themselves from the ruinous lawsuits that will come their way, and that is wrong. What we are about to do today is wrong. But hey, this is Congress, what else is new. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks]. (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, in an abundance of caution, the conferees of S. 636 determined that it was important to the viability of the law to provide a severability clause in the conference report ``providing that if any provision of the act is held invalid the remaining provisions are unaffected * * *'' [from Statement of Managers]. Because neither the Senate-passed bill nor the House amendment thereto contained such a severability clause, the Committee on the Judiciary was concerned that this bit of lawyerly caution may be a technical violation of the scope rule. Thus, the committee asked for-- and was granted--this rule to waive the possible scope problem for what would clearly be a very minor violation but a very good substantive result. I thank the distinguished Chairman and members of the Rules Committee for their work, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule to allow us to proceed to the conclusion for this legislation. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROOKS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify that I have not misspoken on the subject. My understanding is that neither this body nor the other body had provided for severability. Mr. BROOKS. The gentleman is correct. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton]. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act, S. 636. If passed, for the first time in our Nation's history we will make it a Federal crime in a real sense to express an opinion on an issue that some people may think is politically incorrect, i.e., that pro-life is a very important issue that we should all try to support. There are enough laws on the books at the Federal level, State level, and local level to prevent protesters that abuse the right to peacefully demonstrate on public property. We do not need to make a Federal crime out of pro-life believers who try to counsel on sidewalks and who try to in some way exercise their first-amendment rights to freedom of speech. I know that some pro-life protesters have abused the privilege that we have in our Constitution. I know that those protesters have been dealt with very aggressively at the State and local level. We certainly do not need to make this a Federal crime. We should legislate for the general, not for the exceptional, rule, and for that reason I would hope that we would vote this bill down and vote no. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Schenk]. Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and support of the conference report on freedom of access to clinics. Mr. Speaker, it has been 6 months since the House passed this landmark legislation. But in fact, American women have waited far longer than 6 months for this protection. In the past 16 years, family planning clinics have endured: 36 bombings, 81 arsons, 131 death threats, 84 assaults, 2 kidnappings, and 327 break-ins. In the past year alone, California clinics have endured 1,100 separate acts of violence, including a vicious chemical attack on a San Diego clinic in March 1993. And for what reason, Mr. Speaker? Because they provide reproductive health care services to women. Pap smears, screenings for STD's, contraceptives, prenatal care, infertility treatment, counseling--and yes, helping a woman's constitutional right to terminate her own pregnancy. And now, after all this violence and all this time, the opposition is again making petty procedural objections in an attempt to kill this bill. Their true agenda is to continue the reign of harrassment, terror, and physical intimidation against women and their doctors. This sensible legislation should not be derailed by senseless objections. We can wait no longer--pass this rule, pass this conference report, and give American women the protection of our rights we deserve. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker]. Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first of all, that no one is talking about condoning violence in any kind of demonstration at any time. We are not talking violence here. We are talking justice. The question here before us today is in part whether or not we are going to apply the same laws to ourselves here in the U.S. Congress as we apply to other people. Let me give you just an example. If you are a Member of Congress who decides to go down and protest in front of the White House against the policy in Haiti and you get yourself arrested, you are going to be fined under D.C. law. You get a $50 fine and come back up the street and vote right away again in the U.S. Congress. That is the law we are going to apply to ourselves. But what about middle-class Americans who decide that what they want to do is to protest the abortions going on in clinics and want to peacefully demonstrate outside an abortion clinic? What are we going to do to them? We are not going to have the $50 fine there. What we are going to do is we are going to make a Federal law, we are going to make them spend a year and a half in prison for doing the same thing. You know, it is kind of interesting that we have one standard for Members of Congress who want to go and demonstrate in front of the White House and another standard for middle-class Americans who want to protest in front of an abortion clinic. They are doing the same thing, they are peacefully demonstrating against something they regard to be a societal wrong; peacefully carrying out their right to freedom of speech. Yet in one case we are going to have one and a half years in prison and in another case it is $50 and coming back here to the floor to vote. Well, I am tired of this kind of duplicity in what we do in the U.S. Congress. If we are going to have these kinds of laws, why do we not have the year and a half Federal crime for people who are down demonstrating in front of the White House? There is no difference in the two kinds of demonstrations, as long as they are peaceful. We are not about to do that because that is not something which is what we think is politically correct. I am tired of the political correctness. I think we ought to have justice. Justice demands that we treat ourselves in the U.S. Congress the same way that we treat middle-class America. That is not what is happening here. Maybe what we ought to do is defeat this rule, maybe get this thing back to the conference committee where they will take a look at simple justice for middle-class America rather than the kind of elitism that goes on when we deal with the laws as they apply to Congress. Congress is going to continue, my guess is, to go down and protest in front of the White House and get fined $50. Middle-class America, if this bill passes, may try to carry out their peaceful demonstration in front of a clinic or an abortion mill of some sort, and what is going to happen? They are going to get a year and a half in prison. That is just wrong. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in order to respond to the gentleman. Now, I am sure if Members of Congress were to walk down in front of the White House and threaten people who were trying to go inside and interfere with the going in and going out of the White House of people on their regular business, if they were to keep them up all night in the White House, calling and making protests, follow them home, take down their license plate numbers on their cars, if they were to follow the children of persons who worked at the White House, harassing them in school, if they were to make death threats against the persons in the White House and if they were to physically obstruct persons from going in and out of the White House of the United States, those Members of Congress who are also a middle American, would certainly expect to receive the full penalty of the law. Peaceful demonstrators in front of the White House, peaceful demonstrators in front of a clinic, peaceful demonstrators in front of a synagogue, peaceful demonstrators in front of any religious institution, are not going to be thrown into jail for a year and a half as the previous speaker had indicated. It is almost sad to me to think of the litany that Ms. Schenk just read of the break-ins, of the bombings, of the burnings, of the shootings, of the knifings, the killings, the threats, to try to equate that to persons making a peaceful protest in front of the White House over an issue over which they are concerned is ludicrous; they are fined, as Mr. Frank pointed out well. that is civil disobedience, they are making their points and they are fined and they will certainly take their punishment. But that is a far, far different thing from the issue we are here today for and I would not want anybody to misunderstand that; that the threats of violence and the shootings, the intimidation, the scare tactics and the damage that has been done is real. This is nothing theoretical that we are talking about here. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker, and I, therefore, yield 2 minutes, for the purposes of debate only to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. The bill is long overdue, and the time for action is now. We cannot allow obstructionist forces to block this sensible and well-crafted legislation any longer. Do not be fooled by those who will use obscure arguments to stall this bill. This rule was necessitated only because a severability clause was added to protect the various components of the legislation should any particular provision be found unconstitutional. This clause is a routine technical provision and is standard, boiler-plate language. The real issue at hand is whether the Congress will take strong, concrete action to stop the violence and terrorism at women's health clinics. Women and doctors are being harassed, terrorized, even murdered. We cannot stand by and let this continue. FACE, while not infringing in any way upon the first amendment, protects women and doctors from the escalating antichoice violence. We have waited long enough to enact this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the conference report. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I want to inform my colleague from New York [Ms. Slaughter] that I have been asked to yield as well, and I assume there is no objection. But I am still the last speaker after this yielding. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the procedure. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that my friend, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter], took some exception to what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] had said with regard to those who picket in front of the White House and who might in some way hamper the entrance or exit to the White House and that they would get the full extent of the law meted out to them. The problem is that it would be a very minimal sentence, if it was a sentence at all, a very minimal fine. And the difference is the draconian aspects of this legislation, which says that you go to jail for a year and a half simply for sitting in front of the door or on a sidewalk. That does not comport with what I thought American law is all about in terms of justice. And the problem with this legislation is that it blurs the distinction between violence, which I absolutely abhor, and with nonviolent civil disobedience, which has been the hallmark, the staple of every single human rights, civil rights movement in this country. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York. Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman very much and appreciate his yielding. Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a major difference, and I am sure the gentleman understands that. If a person is standing in front of the White House attempting to shut it down or if they threatened to burn it down or blow it up or to kill people inside---- Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Violence and nonviolence are different, fundamentally different. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me assure the gentleman there is no attempt in this vote, none of us would support this bill if it interfered with the right of peaceful assembly. Indeed, it has been gone over with a fine- tooth comb. Everyone has said that the constitutionality is quite secure here. None of us is attempting to interfere in any way with the right of peaceful assembly. It is the organized terrorism and the fear and harassment of people going about their daily lives, breaking no laws, that we are trying to stop here today. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to make it very clearly understood that I think organized terrorism, shootings, bombings, knife threats, assaults, break-ins, are against the law. I do not know of any community where those are not against the law of the United States of America. If anybody can show me such a community, I would suggest that they need a law. But that is not the case. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking now about very specific language, and I want to repeat it closely for my colleagues, and I am reading: ``By the threat of force attempts to intimidate any person.'' Let me say again: ``By threat of force attempts to intimidate any person;'' a clenched fist, in somebody's mind from afar, could be considered an attempt to intimidate. That is not a stretch of the imagination, and that is the kind of overbroadness we are concerned about. {time} 1800 The second thing, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about is that we just got through dispensing with our version of the crime bill, and we sent it over with the so-called racial justice provision in it, and for the first time we have taken the blindfold off justice and said it is important to know what color a perpetrator of the crime is. Never before have we done that, and yet we have now done that through this so-called racial justice provision. Today we are going one step further. We are tilting the scales of justice for those with a particular belief. We are saying that they do not have access to being compensated for legal costs if they believe one thing, but, if they believe something else, then they can get legal costs. That is tilting the scales of justice, and clearly it will lead to frivolous lawsuits and, as I said, a big profit line for certain types of attorneys. Mr. Speaker, those are the kinds of ambiguities and the unfairnesses that are in this legislation, and let nobody deny it. No matter how it is expressed, Mr. Speaker, they are there. We are all against illegal acts of violence. What we are concerned about now is the rights of people who are protected under our Constitution This legislation is headed for the court. There is no question that this legislation is not going to go to the court for some type of further interpretation. We are way out on a limb here. I have never seen anything like this. I do not know who will end up being the most right or the most wrong in all the dire predictions that are going back and forth. We all want to stop the violence. This is not going to do it. This is going to breed confusion, another layer of legislation, gives people who want to make mischief more of an opportunity to create mischief because of uncertainties in the law. I say to my colleagues, ``You can't pass bad laws and get good results,'' and this is what this does, Mr. Speaker. For that reason I am asking for a no vote on this rule. Let us go back. Let us take out severability, and let us even up this question of legal costs. Then we might be getting a little closer to something that might make sense, but not much. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I close this debate I would like to make a few remarks that just reiterate what has been said. Obviously this has a lot to do with the First Amendment, the rights of free expression and free speech. Unfortunately over the number of years many, many people in this country have been denied their rights by people who obstruct them, who threaten them, who intimidate them, and that still comes under the definition of assault, and it is illegal. Mr. Speaker, we are not changing any definitions. We are not interfering with the first amendment in any way. We are simply saying that everyone's rights in America have to be attended to, not just that of the protester. It is also important, Mr. Speaker, that a person who works within a building have a sense that they are going to be able to go to work on a daily basis safely. It is also important that a person going to a health clinic to exercise her rights to health care be allowed to go without threats, shouts, and intimidation being visited upon her or any of her family. It is pretty simple. The violence that is practiced against those persons who are trying to exercise their own constitutional rights have made this legislation necessary, and I urge that my colleagues pass this rule and get on to passing this conference report so that we can sign into law a bill that unfortunately, because of the circumstances in the country, has become all too necessary. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). The question is on the resolution. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present. The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent members. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were, yeas 236, nays 181, not voting 15, as follows: [Roll No. 157] YEAS--236 Abercrombie Ackerman Andrews (ME) Andrews (NJ) Andrews (TX) Applegate Bacchus (FL) Baesler Barca Barrett (WI) Becerra Beilenson Berman Bilbray Bishop Boehlert Bonior Borski Boucher Brewster Brooks Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant Byrne Cantwell Cardin Carr Chapman Clay Clayton Clyburn Coleman Collins (IL) Collins (MI) Condit Conyers Cooper Coppersmith Coyne Cramer Danner Darden Deal DeFazio DeLauro Dellums Derrick Deutsch Dicks Dingell Dixon Dooley Durbin Edwards (CA) Edwards (TX) Engel English Eshoo Evans Farr Fazio Fields (LA) Filner Fingerhut Flake Ford (MI) Ford (TN) Frank (MA) Franks (CT) Frost Furse Gallo Gejdenson Gephardt Geren Gibbons Gilman Glickman Gonzalez Gordon Green Gutierrez Hall (OH) Hamburg Hamilton Harman Hastings Hayes Hefner Hilliard Hinchey Hoagland Hochbrueckner Horn Houghton Hoyer Hughes Inslee Jacobs Jefferson Johnson (CT) Johnson (GA) Johnson (SD) Johnson, E. B. Johnston Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy Kennelly Kleczka Klein Klug Kolbe Kopetski Kreidler Lambert Lancaster Lantos LaRocco Leach Lehman Levin Lewis (GA) Lloyd Lowey Machtley Maloney Mann Margolies-Mezvinsky Markey Martinez Matsui Mazzoli McCloskey McCurdy McDermott McHale McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek Menendez Mfume Miller (CA) Mineta Minge Mink Moakley Molinari Moran Morella Murtha Nadler Neal (MA) Neal (NC) Oberstar Obey Olver Orton Owens Pallone Pastor Payne (NJ) Payne (VA) Pelosi Peterson (FL) Pickett Pickle Pomeroy Porter Pryce (OH) Ramstad Rangel Reed Reynolds Richardson Roemer Rostenkowski Rowland Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Sanders Sangmeister Sawyer Schenk Schroeder Schumer Scott Sharp Shays Shepherd Sisisky Skaggs Slattery Slaughter Smith (IA) Snowe Spratt Stokes Strickland Studds Swift Synar Tanner Thompson Thornton Thurman Torkildsen Torres Torricelli Towns Traficant Tucker Unsoeld Valentine Velazquez Vento Visclosky Washington Waters Watt Waxman Wheat Whitten Williams Wilson Wise Woolsey Wyden Wynn Yates Zeliff Zimmer NAYS--181 Allard Archer Armey Bachus (AL) Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Ballenger Barcia Barlow Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bateman Bentley Bereuter Bilirakis Bliley Blute Boehner Bonilla Browder Bunning Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Canady Castle Clinger Coble Collins (GA) Combest Costello Cox Crane Crapo Cunningham de la Garza DeLay Diaz-Balart Dickey Doolittle Dornan Dreier Duncan Dunn Ehlers Emerson Everett Ewing Fawell Fields (TX) Fowler Franks (NJ) Gallegly Gekas Gilchrest Gillmor Gingrich Goodlatte Goodling Goss Grams Grandy Greenwood Gunderson Hall (TX) Hancock Hansen Hastert Hefley Hobson Hoekstra Hoke Holden Huffington Hunter Hutchinson Hutto Hyde Inglis Inhofe Istook Johnson, Sam Kasich Kildee Kim King Kingston Klink Knollenberg Kyl LaFalce Lazio Levy Lewis (CA) Lewis (FL) Lightfoot Linder Lipinski Livingston Manton Manzullo McCandless McCrery McDade McHugh McInnis McKeon McMillan Meyers Mica Michel Miller (FL) Mollohan Montgomery Moorhead Murphy Myers Nussle Ortiz Oxley Packard Parker Paxon Penny Peterson (MN) Petri Pombo Portman Poshard Quillen Quinn Rahall Ravenel Regula Ridge Roberts Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roth Roukema Royce Santorum Sarpalius Saxton Schaefer Schiff Sensenbrenner Shaw Shuster Skeen Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (OR) Smith (TX) Solomon Spence Stearns Stenholm Stump Stupak Sundquist Talent Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Tejeda Thomas (CA) Thomas (WY) Upton Volkmer Vucanovich Walker Walsh Weldon Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) NOT VOTING--15 Bevill Blackwell Clement Fish Foglietta Herger Laughlin Long McCollum Price (NC) Rogers Rose Serrano Stark Swett {time} 1825 Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. STUPAK, and Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' So the resolution was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 417, I call up the conference report on Senate bill (S. 636) to amend the Public Health Service Act to permit individuals to have freedom of access to certain medical clinics and facilities, and for other purposes. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). Pursuant to House Resolution 417, the conference record is considered as having been read. (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of Monday, May 2, 1994, at page H2917.) The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] will be recognized for 30 minutes, The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] will be recognized for 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks]. (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Conference Committee on S. 636 reported back to us a product that merges the Senate and the House-passed bills in a very careful, balanced fashion. Thus, the Senate's protections against interfering with the exercise of religious freedom at places of religious worship have been preserved. Those protections are the same as those enjoyed by persons obtaining or providing reproductive health services. The Conference Committee agreed to the lower penalties found in the Senate version of the legislation, which was also a matter of some importance to the Members of this body. Other House Members were concerned that the meaning of the words interfere with were not defined in the House bill. The Senate bill's definition of that term is contained in the conference report. The report also consolidates and clarifies the various rules of construction, without losing any of their meaning. Because of the concerns raised by some regarding any possible effect of this legislation on first amendment activities, I want to quote from the conference report its rule of construction (d)(1) on that crucial point, and I quote: ``(d) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed-- ``(1) To prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the first amendment to the constitution;'' Such language was a part of the legislation in both bodies of Congress, remains a part of the final product, and makes crystal clear to the courts and to the American people that the statute does not and cannot apply--in any way, shape, or form--to any activity protected by the first amendment of our great Constitution. The need for this legislation remains great. Contrary to what some would have you believe, the Supreme Court's recent decision in National Organization for Women versus Scheidler on the application of the RICO statute does nothing to lessen that need. Nor does Madsen versus Women's Health Center--now pending before the Supreme Court--do anything to affect its validity. We are finally at the last stage of our long journey with this legislation. We need to take this last step and send it on to the President for his signature and enactment into law. I commend my fellow conferees in both Houses for their fine work, and I urge my colleagues to vote aye for this conference report. {time} 1830 Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on S. 636, the FACE bill. Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement adopts the Senate position on two key issues: First, it extends the bill's provisions to places of religious worship, and second, it changes the penalties with respect to non-violent physical obstruction. However, even with these provisions the legislation is still fundamentally flawed. Many serious problems remain. First, FACE still violates equal protection by penalizing people for their beliefs. The Senate committee report on this bill says, Thus, for example, if an environmental group blocked passage to a hospital where abortions happen to be performed, but did so as part of a demonstration over harmful emissions produced by the facility, the demonstrators would not violate this Act. Therefore, if two people are engaging in identical conduct--i.e., peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience--outside an abortion clinic but for different reasons, only the pro-life person has committed a Federal crime under FACE, and it is only a Federal crime because of the person's belief that abortion is wrong. This clearly constitutes government disfavor of a viewpoint, not of conduct. The amendment protecting places of worship does not constitute viewpoint discrimination since it punishes only conduct, not motivation. It doesn't look to why a person is defacing or obstructing passage to a place of religious worship. Second, FACE still provides unduly harsh penalties for non-violent physical obstruction. Even though the bill reduces penalties for non-violent civil disobedience, a second offense is still a felony, punishable by up to 18 months in prison. The punishment is not proportionate to the crime and is grossly out of proportion to the penalties for most other acts of peaceful civil disobedience. Third, FACE gives abortions clinics the bludgeon of Federal civil remedies to use against individual pro-lifers. The chief reason abortion advocates want the FACE bill is found in the civil remedies section. A pro-life person can be dragged into court under a civil action brought by an abortion clinic without ever having been convicted of a crime. The extensive civil damages allowed under the FACE bill--including automatic statutory damages of $5,000 per incident--are unprecedented in traditional Federal civil rights statutes. FACE permits abortion clinic owners and personnel to sue for temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs of suit and fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. It allows the U.S. Attorney General as well as the State attorneys general, another unprecedented provision, to sue pro- lifers in Federal court on behalf of the abortion clinic or personnel and gives the court authority to assess thousands of dollars in civil penalties against each pro-lifer. Moreover, conferees dropped a provision contained in the Senate bill, which is part of traditional civil rights laws, requiring the U.S. Attorney General to find that the conduct raises an issue of general public importance before initiating a lawsuit. The conference agreement also adopts the Senate position, which would not permit a pro-life defendant to obtain reasonable attorneys fees even if the lawsuit filed by the abortion clinic was frivolous and without merit. Conferees rejected language in the House bill which at least allowed for reimbursement under those limited circumstances. Therefore, the language in the conference report is an invitation for abortion clinics to file harassing lawsuits against pro-lifers since they would have nothing to lose. Fourth, FACE will restrict peaceful picketing and sidewalk counseling outside of abortion clinics. Regardless of Congress' intention, many will be afraid to engage in first amendment-protected activity outside of abortion clinics because they cannot afford the risk to their financial security or the disruption to their family lives that might arise from false or misleading charges leveled against them by pro-abortion escorts or personnel. There are numerous incidents of clinics filing harassing lawsuits against pro-life women and men who are legally picketing, praying, and sidewalk counseling. Fifth, FACE federalizes crimes already prohibited by State and local laws. From a criminal justice standpoint, there is no need for this legislation. There are already numerous Federal and State laws against acts of violence and authorities have been diligent in prosecuting people who attack abortion providers. According to statistics from the National Abortion Federation, the number of abortion clinic sit-ins and arrests has declined dramatically since 1989. None of us condones violence, no matter how noble the cause that is invoked. But this bill is not limited to violence. It strikes at the heart of political and social protest and makes Federal felons out of concerned citizens--grandparents, parents and children--who are simply seeking to exercise their constitutional rights. We cannot sit by and let Congress give this incredible legal weapon to one side of the abortion debate. Congress should act fairly and responsibly. This bill is none of the above. Pro-lifers are the principal targets of the FACE bill. Who is next? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder]. (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank the Chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks]. He has been absolutely wonderful on helping us move this issue, as has the chairman of the subcommittee the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. I am very proud to serve on the Committee on the Judiciary as the only woman on this issue, and I am thrilled to be in this well, knowing that we have finally gotten to this final step. I listened to the prior speaker, and I must say I am very frustrated. Has anyone ever seen the American Civil Liberties Union come out in support of anything that violated anybody's rights? No. {time} 1840 They back this, medical groups back this, all sorts of people back this. Mr. Speaker, what does this conference report do? It only imposes penalties if someone is engaging in force or violence. I would think people could figure that out, or they are engaging in physical obstruction so that people cannot get in. One can talk, one can picket, one can persuade, but when one physically obstructs someone from exercising their rights, then that says their rights have stopped. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much clearer that can be. I get very tired of hearing people saying over and over again, oh, my, this will be terrible, this is the nose under the tent, what will happen next? Mr. Speaker, most women get the majority of their care in these clinics. If they cannot get into these clinics, then they cannot get their care, and to harass the medical profession that is working there is outrageous as we know, and these incidents of violence keep going on and on and on. We have all sorts of precedents in the law on this. During picketing by a labor organization, there must be a reserve gate or an injunction can be gotten. Everybody is allowed access in and out. It cannot be stopped. We did the same thing protecting labs that had animals in it. Mr. Speaker, if we do not care as much about America's women as we did animals, I think we are sending a terrible message. This is a very clear precedent. This is nothing new. Americans have talked about this for a very long time. Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope we move rapidly to pass it in this final step. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the problem with this legislation is it elevates to the Federal level something that ought to be left to local law. There are plenty of laws that cover demonstrations on the picket line, obstruction on the picket line, intimidation, but this is elevating to the level of a Federal law this sort of conduct only because the target is antiabortion protesters. Mr. Speaker, we do not do that to environmentalists, we do not do that to peace demonstrators, we do not do that for labor disputes, but antiabortion. Mr. Speaker, that is what is wrong with this bill. I have this foolish notion that equal protection of the law means that everybody should be treated equally, but we are not treating labor disputes equally with antiabortion disputes. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] said, when has the ACLU ever been against anybody's rights? I will tell my colleagues, all the time. The unborn child's rights, the basic right to life, the ACLU does not defend over the right of the woman to exterminate her child. Mr. Speaker, physical obstruction is bad, it ought to be punished. But is handing somebody a pamphlet in front of an abortion clinic an obstruction? Do not think there will not be judges that will find that. Mr. Speaker, according to the gentlewoman from Colorado, labor disputes are all taken care of. I would point out on April 6 of this year, a few weeks ago, 75,000 Teamsters walked off their jobs, shutting down 22 major trucking companies, and let us go through a mild catalogue of violence: Steven Sarrazino, a 27-year-old man from Streamwood, IL was beaten into a coma after he made a delivery to the Karps Bakery in Elk Grove Village, in my district. In Kissimmee, FL, two bullets were fired at Don Gilbert, a tractor trailer driver, minutes after he said over a CB radio that he had a family to feed and would not honor the Teamsters strike. In California, a clash between Teamsters and police sent seven people to the hospital. And on and on and on. Mr. Speaker, the murderer of Dr. Gunn is in prison. The woman who shot at Dr. Tiller and hit him in the arm, Rachelle Shannon, she is in prison, and this law did not put them there. Mr. Speaker, we all know Dr. Gunn's name. How many of us know Eddie York's name? How many of us have ever heard of Eddie York? He was shot to death July 20 of last year crossing a picket line at a coal mine in West Virginia. If we want to catalogue the violence, we can talk about that. But, no, we are only interested in getting after people on the sidewalk who were not at Auschwitz but they are in front of the new version of Auschwitz, abortion clinics. We are punishing them in a punitive way, it is vindictive, and it is terribly wrong. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld]. (Mrs. UNSOELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Speaker, for years radical antiabortion groups have been denying women's rights and endangering women's health by blockading family planning clinics. This past year they stepped up their attacks. Clinics were bombed with noxious butyrica acid and savaged with fire. One doctor was wounded in Kansas and another shot dead in Florida. The women who make up the majority of clinic clients could not miss the threat: ``Give up the right to make your own health choices or else.'' They have refused to succumb. Instead, clinic attacks sparked national outrage and demands that the brutal ideologically-based violence be stopped. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act can make the violence stop by imposing tough Federal penalties on those who obstruct and harass people entering clinics. It is carefully crafted to protect the first amendment rights of protesters by explicitly allowing peaceful protest--from picketing and praying to speeches and literature distribution--as long as that protest does not physically block those trying to enter or exit a clinic. Scores of American women turn to family planning clinics each year for cancer screenings and pap smears, for treatment of reproductive disorders and yes, sometimes for abortions. All they are asking from us is protection of their right to enter such clinics without harassment, without abuse and without fear. Please do not let them down. Support passage of the conference report of the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis]. Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on both the criminal grounds and the civil grounds. On the criminal grounds, I find it very interesting that I was just today with the National Conference of State Legislators talking about unfunded Federal mandates and their fear of the federalization of everything in this country, and in particular the federalization of law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, I ask any supporter of this bill, why on earth would we turn this into a Federal crime? Why on earth would we have Federal folks come out and haul people off from clinics and then prosecute them? What logic would compel anyone to think that that makes any sense whatsoever? Surely there are State laws to handle this. Surely there are State law enforcement agencies to haul them off, and surely there are State courts to enforce the law. But, no, we want to grow this Federal Government. We do not have enough; $4.2 trillion in debt, let us add a little more. Let us build a few more courthouses, hire a bunch of DA's, hire a bunch of new judges so we can haul these protesters into Federal courts when they could be going into State courts. But, no, the sheriffs in the Congress, and we seem to have a lot of them, folks who forgot they were not elected to be sheriff of their town, they were elected to be Congressmen and women to serve here in Washington, not to do local law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone in a bipartisan way to listen to our State legislators, hear them. Republicans and Democrats alike talk about the risk of federalizing law enforcement. Then ask them: Are we going to take from the Democrat county councilman and the Republican county councilwoman the ability to enforce the laws locally? Are we going to make everything Federal in this country? Have we forgotten the States exist? Do we want to just have Federal law enforcement? Mr. Speaker, that is the question that I put to the supporters of this bill. I do not think they can answer it. I do not think they have any justification for a Federal law on something that clearly can be imposed and enforced by local folks. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time and for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, when we began this bill, I introduced this bill a year and a half ago, and if anything has happened since then, we have seen the need for it. First I would say that FACE has the overwhelming support of the House. On the last vote in March that sent this bill to conference, the vote was 252 to 180, it was bipartisan, liberals and conservatives and Members who call themselves pro-choice and pro-life. Mr. Speaker, that is simple. The reason for that is simple, because this is a bill about protecting a Federal right that is trying to be taken away. When local law enforcement is either unable or unwilling to protect the right, whether we agree or disagree with that right, that was granted to women in Roe versus Wade, we have no choice but to move in or all Federal rights become a mockery. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues that that is why this bill has had support, that is why this bill has gone through. I know that the opponents have tried to use every parliamentary maneuver to drag out the process for months, but it does not succeed because the facts are not there. {time} 1850 The bill is simply drawn. The bill does not, you know, for the fourth or fifth time, let me say, if it stops peaceful protests, as chief sponsor of the bill, I would withdraw it, but it does not; it does not in its operative language. There is a clause in the bill that makes it explicit that any peaceful protest, handing out a leaflet, standing across the street, even shouting names is not covered by the bill. We all know what is covered by the bill: blockade, of course, is covered by the bill. The tradition of Gandhi and of Martin Luther King, in terms of civil disobedience, says you should pay a price if you are going to throw your body on the line and deprive somebody else of a granted right. Of course, it stops violence, and we have seen all too much violence surrounding these clinics. It is a very good bill. We need this bill. FACE has the overwhelming support of the House. On the last vote in March that sent this bill to conference, the vote was 252 to 180. Supporters include Democrats and Republicans--37 Republicans in fact-- liberals and conservatives--and Members who call themselves pro-choice and pro-life. But despite this bipartisan and cross-cutting ideological support, a handful of opponents have used every parliamentary maneuver to drag out the process for months. So I think it is helpful to remind everyone here about the circumstances that have made this bill so desperately necessary. This bill is not about whether you are pro-choice or pro-life. Yes, it is true, if you're pro-choice as I am, you have to vote for this bill. Because you want to see that the constitutional right to choose really exists. That in the real world, women and doctors can enter a clinic and seek or provide reproductive services without being subjected to violence. But it is equally true, that if you are pro-life, this is the one bill that mentions abortion that you certainly can vote for, and have voted for. Because you, as a pro-life member, know that a vote for FACE is not a vote that compromises your core beliefs about abortion. Rather, it is a vote to stop the rapidly spreading pattern of grotesque and deadly violence against innocent women, innocent doctors, innocent nurses, and innocent workers at health facilities all across the nation. That is what this bill is about, stopping violence. Plain and simple and nothing else. It is about the shooting and murder of Dr. David Gunn in Florida in March 1993. It is about the shooting and bodily injury of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas in August 1993. It is about the 33,000 incidents of violence, death threats, bomb threats, actual bombings, actual deaths, actual arson and actual murder that have occurred since 1977. I repeat: 33,000 incidents since 1977. And in 1993 alone, one out of every two clinics in this Nation experienced an actual act of structural damage or physical violence. This is an alarming, frightening and unconscionable pattern of abuse of innocent citizens--that State and local authorities have told my own subcommittee--they refuse to stop. They have refused to pursue the attackers and they have refused to enforce local anti-violence laws. And that, my friends, is what prompted a Federal response. The bill before us today penalizes the force, threat of force or physical obstruction--international or attempted--of a person obtaining or providing reproductive health services or a person exercising or seeking to exercise the first amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship. That is right. FACE now protects worshippers and places of religious worship, because as House Members instructed those of us who were conferees, the conference added the Senate's Hatch amendment to FACE. And that is a good thing. Because we who respect a woman's right to reproductive health free of violence also cherish--deeply cherish--the right of churches and synagogues and clergy leaders and parishioners to pray free of violence. That's why a vote for FACE is indeed a vote for free prayer. There is something else we added in conference, something that will make it even easier for everyone to vote for this bill. We have lowered the penalties for nonviolent offenses. The first-time nonviolent offense is now a misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of six months. The second and subsequent offenses carry a maximum sentence of 18 months. Now, let me tell you what makes me most proud of this bill. The way it is carefully and painstakingly tailored not to be overbroad, and the way it has been expressly written, to protect the constitutional right of anyone who opposes abortion to protest peacefully outside a clinic. This is proven by a case the Supreme Court heard just last week, which is very good news for this bill. The case is called Madsen versus Women's Health Center. It involves a judicial ruling in Florida that says demonstrators cannot under any circumstances enter so-called buffer zones around a clinic or a staff member's home. Well, we who drafted FACE anticipated the Supreme Court's concerns about such restrictions, and we rejected the Madsen approach. In fact, in the oral arguments the Supreme Court heard last week, the Justices approvingly noted the difference between carefully tailored statutes like FACE--which penalizes a specific act of violence or a specific threat of violence against a specific victim--versus possibly overbroad rulings like Madsen that establish blanket restrictions in arbitrary zones. And there is yet another difference between FACE and Madsen, the most crucial difference of all. FACE, in its text, has an explicit section that protects the first amendment right of protesters, whether pro- choice or pro-life, to express themselves peacefully. So comparing FACE and Madsen is like comparing apples and oranges--and don't let the opponents of this bill tell you otherwise. There are so many people I want to thank for bringing this bill to where it is today. I want to thank my wonderful and committed original cosponsor, Connie Morella, for bringing bipartisan support to the Schumer-Morella Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994. I want to thank my distinguished chairman, Jack Brooks, for being so committed to this bill and to its fundamental premise of nonviolence. And I want to thank the dean of the congressional women's delegation, Pat Schroeder, for helping to shepherd this bill through and for being a pioneer on issues of choice and women's justice. And I want to thank Louise Slaughter, who did a tremendous job on the rule. I also want to thank the many organizations throughout the Nation, and their legislative Representatives here in Washington, who have worked tirelessly for this bill. And, finally, I want to thank the congressional staff who have been committed to this bill with their hearts and never-ending work. There are so many, but I want to mention three. Cindy Hall of Connie Morella's staff, Marie McGlone on the Judiciary Committee, and the counsel on my Subcommittee on Crime, Steven Goldstein, whose commitment and nonstop work on this bill has been second to none. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson]. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the reality is that clinic violence has risen dramatically in the past year, with fully half of clinics participating in the recent survey experiencing severe antiabortion violence. Virtually all of these clinics participating in the survey provide services that are important to women, and often are the only providers available to women without insurance. They provide birth control services, prenatal care services, menopausal treatment services, to name only a few. In order for this legislation to be invoked, there must be violence, threat of violence, or physical obstruction. Antiabortion activists who are lawfully exercising their first-amendment right to demonstrate peacefully will not be penalized by this legislation. The Supreme Court has upheld a woman's right until the point of fetal viability to have an abortion. That is her legal right. To physically dissent from this decision made by the Court by blockading a building, by preventing a woman from exercising her legal right to access to a legal medical procedure, is a violation of the law, pure and simple. My right to swing my arm ends at your nose. Democracy rests on a foundation of liberty and tolerance and respect and matters of conscience are sometimes hard as the abortion issue demonstrates, but differences honestly held, though deeply in conflict, cannot be resolved by denying the rights of others. This bill's goal is to balance the rights of all so that the right to dissent is protected while the right of access is honored. I urge your support of this bill. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], a distinguished member of the committee. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, of which I am a cosponsor. The purpose of this bill, to put it simply, is to protect liberty against mob rule. The liberty interest at issue here is a most fundamental one: The right of women to choose whether and when to bear children and receive necessary health care services. Let's clear away the false rhetoric. This bill does not in any way threaten the first amendment rights of abortion opponents. It will prevent any group whatever their motivation--from using force or threats of violence to impose their beliefs on their fellow citizens by physically obstructing or intimidating them from exercising a constitutionally protected right. Let us be clear: The concerns animating supporters of this bill are by no means hypothetical. Physical obstruction, intimidation, and out- and-out violence--up to an including arson and murder--have become commonplace at reproductive health care clinics throughout the country. It is not merely the right, but the obligation of government to protect citizens whose constitutionally protected rights are systemically threatened in the manner that certain antichoice zealots have made their trademark. Hearings held by the Judiciary Committee have documented the nature and extent of the violence, obstruction, and harassment. The women of America, and the health professionals who serve them, are looking to us for relief from these outrages. It is high time that we act to put a stop to the deliberate, orchestrated campaign by antichoice zealots to accomplish by physical force what they have not been able to accomplish through the democratic process and in the courts. The Federal Government has often stepped in to protect constitutional rights when local authorities are unable or unwilling to deal with significant organized threats to the fundamental liberties of average Americans. We will act in that tradition today when we vote for final passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady]. Mr. CANADY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the conference report on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act because the FACE Act will penalize people for the peaceful and lawful expression of their beliefs. This bill subject protestors to harsh criminal and civil penalties on the basis of the belief which motivates them to engage in protest. A pro-life protestor engaged in a confrontation with an abortion rights protestor in front of a clinic could be required to serve a harsh federal sentence and pay civil damages, while the abortion rights protestor would be able to engage in the same or more egregious acts with immunity from federal government punishment. In fact, the abortion rights protestor could even profit from his or her actions by suing the pro-life protestor claiming her or she has been ``aggrieved by a violation'' of the FACE Act. This act gives so-called ``clinic defenders'' and clinic personnel a license to taunt, abuse, provoke and obstruct pro-life people engaged in legal picketing, prayer or sidewalk counseling. Moreover, it creates an economic incentive for so-called clinic defenders and personnel to incite a reaction from pro-life protestors. The FACE Act is clearly discriminatory. It creates a viewpoint- specific federal crime that offends the most fundamental principle of the First Amendment--that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea because society finds that idea disagreeable. I urge my colleagues to prevent this fundamental unfairness to people of a particular viewpoint. Vote ``no'' on the conference report on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly]. (Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, imagine going to work everyday, and being forced to run a gauntlet of protesters, some of whom threaten your life. Imagine being in a profession where colleagues have been shot and killed. Imagine having your spouse and children threatened, and not knowing if your family is safe. Too many health care providers in this country do not have to use their imagination to picture these scenarios. All they have to do is show up for work. Violence at reproductive health care clinics is on the rise. This bill is needed to help stop the violence, and the deadly assaults. This is not a free speech issue. This is an issue concerning behavior. Protesters will still be able to express their views in a serious way. This is an anti-violence bill. We have waited too long to extend this protection against violence. I strongly urge my colleagues to pass this bill. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rarely talk on the issue of abortion. The fact is I honestly believe that people can disagree on the issue of abortion, and that the tone of the debate in our country has not been the type of tone that I agree with. I would hope that we would talk reasonably and responsibly to one another. But what we are discussing here is a situation where honest people disagree, and in that situation, we must be very careful that the rights of all people are being protected. I see this law not as an attempt to protect people's rights but, instead, a malicious attempt to single out people with more conservative points of view to suppress their points of view. This is repression. It is aimed at people who have pro-life views. This is a situation where people with more conservative, traditional views are not being given equal justice, because their views are being singled out from all others for the type of protection this law is supposed to afford. {time} 1900 I might add that when we discussed this issue the very first time in this House, people were across the street blockading the doors of a congressional office building in order to pressure this body to vote in favor of statehood. Yet their rights to peaceably demonstrate, no one even brought that up. But I will tell you, if they were pro-life people doing that this bill would suggest if they were pro-lifers doing the same thing at another location, their rights to speak, to assemble would not be considered in the debate and in fact they would be guilty of a crime. This type of legislation is what is leading people with more traditional views in this country to believe that their freedom is under attack, whether we are talking about the Boy Scouts of America, who are being told to take God out of the scout oath or to trash their moral standards for scoutmasters, or on campus, where we see the suppression of points of view that are different from leftists or feminists. If you believe in equal rights and you believe in freedom, you must believe in that freedom for people who disagree with you; people with a pro-life point of view should not be suppressed. This is what this bill is all about. Vote ``no'' against the bill. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act which I have sponsored was drafted in response to a nationally orchestrated campaign of violence and vandalism against reproductive health clinics, as well as physical blockades and invasions of clinics. These illegal activities have been preventing women from obtaining health care services and threatening the lives of health care providers. From 1977 to March 1994, more than 1,587 acts of violence against reproductive health providers were reported in the United States, including 37 bombings, 87 arsons, 175 death threats, 91 assaults, 2 kidnappings, 345 clinic invasions, and 1 murder. From January 1992 to March 1994, 79 chemical attacks were reported in 17 States as well, with damages totaling $560,000. And in a nationwide survey in 1993, 50 percent of the clinics responding reported experiencing extreme violence, with 25 percent of those clinics having experienced physical invasions or chemical attacks in 1993 alone. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is also in response to the 1993 Supreme Court ruling in Bray versus Alexandria which created a gap in Federal law. Federal injunctive relief is no longer available for clinics under Federal civil rights laws. S. 636 will give the Federal Government the power to act when State and local authorities cannot or will not act to guarantee access to these clinics where women, especially poor women, go for a wide range of services that include birth control, prenatal examinations, mammograms, pap smears, as well as abortion services. The bill applies only to the use of force, threat of force, or physical obstruction that intentionally injures, intimidates, or interferes with any person who is obtaining or providing reproductive health services. The conference report protects all expressive conduct, including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstrations, protected by the first amendment. Changes were made in the subcommittee, full committee, on the House floor, and in conference in an effort to further clarify and improve the bill. The conference report includes the Hatch amendment to protect any person exercising or seeking to exercise the first amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship. It also includes the lower Senate penalties for nonviolent offenses. And it has been narrowly drawn to specifically address this problem, without providing too broad a Federal role. Some Members are arguing today that the Supreme Court case in Madsen has some bearing on the passage of this conference report. In fact, S. 636 is a much narrower measure that carefully protects first amendment rights. The ACLU and other first amendment supporters have endorsed S. 636, while they have expressed concerns with the Madsen decision. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act remains an urgent priority to protect women who are seeking reproductive services and the clinics and medical personnel that provide these health services. It is a necessary, appropriate, and reasonable response to this ongoing emergency. I urge my colleagues to vote for the conference report. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to the conference report on S. 636, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Although this conference report contains important changes in the original legislation, most notably the extension of this bill's protections to places of religious worship and the exemption from penalty for parent's of underage daughters, it still violates equal protection by penalizing individuals for their beliefs. For instance, if a group decided to stage a peaceful protest against a hospital because of improper disposal of medical waste and on the same day a pro-life group decided to stage a peaceful protest against the hospital because they perform abortions, only the pro-life group would be prosecuted under the Freedom of Access to Clinic's Act. This would clearly be a case of the Government prosecuting someone because of their viewpoint and not because of their actions. It is unthinkable that we will be making Federal criminals out of a grandmother peacefully praying on a sidewalk or a young mother quietly handing out pamphlets with her children in front of an abortion clinic, but that is what we are doing today when we vote for this conference report. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report. We should not take away the first amendment rights of millions of pro-life Americans. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman]. (Mrs. THURMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the committee chairman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, it seems only appropriate that, in the House's discussion of violence and constitutional rights today, that we should take up and pass the conference report on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Since 1977, there have been 36 bombings, 84 cases of arson, 60 attempted arsons, 35 clinic invasions, 498 acts of vandalism, 86 assaults, 149 death threats, two kidnappings, 29 burglaries, and countless cases of stalking of clinic employees. This is in addition to the countless incidents of hate mail, harassing phone calls, 289 bomb threats, and 589 clinic blockades. The Planned Parenthood Clinic in Ocala, FL, constitutes one of these cases of arson. It has never been rebuilt. For Dr. David Gunn, the Pensacola physician who was murdered this year, for Dr. George Tiller, who was shot, and for the countless women whose rights were infringed upon, this legislation comes too late. Attorney General Janet Reno has testified that, ``In sum, Federal legislation is necessary. The problem is national in scope, local law enforcement has been unable to effectively deal with it, and existing Federal law is inadequate to provide a complete response.'' The conference report ensures American women of their constitutional right to abortion services. It also preserves the first amendment rights of peaceful protestors. Under the conference report, it would be a Federal offense to use force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone seeking or providing reproductive health services. Mr. Speaker, no one should have to live in fear of violent extremists. I urge the passage of this conference report. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, for over 20 years, sidewalk counselors and peaceful protesters have sought to reach the hearts and minds of mothers outside abortion mills with the truth about abortion and the fact that nonviolent alternatives are available. Such altruism and selfless love for both the woman and her baby requires tremendous personal sacrifice especially of late. The multimillion-dollar abortion industry's propaganda machine has worked overtime in recent years to link nonviolent acts of civil disobedience and peaceful dissent with those few misguided fanatics who employ violence as a means to an end. Let me state unequivocally that violence by either side is morally repugnant and has absolutely no place in our struggle to end the child abuse called abortion on demand. Let me remind Members, as well, that the Smith substitute to this bill that the House considered last November--that garnered the support of 177 Members--imposed penalties on those of either side who use or threaten to use force. Under the facade of getting tough on those few people who bomb abortion mills or use violence, the House is poised to stack the deck against peaceful pro-life activists so as to make them prey, an easy mark for ruinous prosecution and civil suits. Incredibly, a pro-lifer can be brought into court under a civil action brought by an abortion mill without ever having been convicted of a crime. The extensive civil damages allowed under the bill--including automatic statutory damages of $5,000 per incident--are unprecedented in traditional Federal civil rights statutes. S. 696 permits abortion clinic owners and personnel to sue for temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief, compensatory-- actual--and punitive damages, as well as costs of suit and fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. It allows the U.S. attorney general as well as the State attorneys general to sue pro-lifers in Federal court on behalf of the abortion clinic or personnel and gives the court authority to assess thousands of dollars in civil penalties against each pro-lifer. S. 636 contains extremely harsh, mean-spirited punishments for acts of nonviolent civil disobedience. Just getting in the way peacefully--a sidewalk sit-in for example, or just attempting to talk to someone outside a clinic, which someone construes to be obstruction--will result in up to 6 months in jail for the first offense, 18 months in jail for the second--plus massive fines and damages and attorney's fees. S. 636 is grossly unfair. This conference report represents an abuse of police power and is unprecedented in its attempt to obliterate and crush dissent in America. Unlike the abortionist, Mr. Speaker, who grows filthy rich by grinding, suctioning, poisoning, and dismembering the fragile bodies of unborn babies, the pro-lifers outside these baby slaughterhouses give of themselves to help both mother and child. Over the past two decades, the results of sidewalk counseling and other forms of peaceful nonviolent outreach have been stunning. An incredibly large number of children have been spared the agony of abortion and these kids are alive today, perhaps playing soccer or baseball and learning the wonders of science, geography, and religion. These children live today and have moms who love them dearly, because a pro-life volunteer cared enough to be outside the abortion mill that day. You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that the pressures to abort a baby in this day and age can be overwhelming, especially during the initial weeks of panic and distress if the pregnancy wasn't expected. Twenty years of experience since Roe versus Wade has shown that, if encouraged to choose life--even at the 11th hour--many mothers will opt to safeguard the child within her. Often, the only and certainly the last voice appealing for the baby's life, is a pro-life volunteer outside the clinic. Nancy, a child who almost died from abortion, will turn 4 next week. She is alive today because her mother, Hanh, met two pro-life women who were sidewalk counseling outside of the Hillcrest Surgi-Center in northwest Washington, DC. When Hanh came to the clinic that day, alone, she had no hope and nowhere to turn. Her situation was about as bad as it gets. A few years after Hanh married and had two children, a boy and a girl, her husband left her and Hanh, a native of Vietnam who spoke little English, had to take a minimum wage job as a seamstress to support her family. Several months later her husband returned and there was a brief reconciliation, but this did not last long. Before leaving again, this time for good, he beat her. A few weeks later she discovered that she was pregnant. It was then that Hanh went to the abortion clinic; she didn't know that anyone could or would help her and she was ashamed to face her family. When she met those two sidewalk counselors, though, she found the help she desperately wanted. She followed them in her car to a pregnancy aid center, Birthright, in Wheaton, and was referred to the Center for Life at Providence Hospital. Over the weeks, Hanh took control of her life once again. She told her family and they helped support her. The State of Maryland began collecting child support from the husband who deserted her. The sidewalk counselors stayed in contact with Hanh throughout her pregnancy, visited her when her baby was born, and have kept in contact with her and her children to this day. Hanh is working on her English and studying to be an accountant. Her eldest child is now in school, and her second is in Head Start. And Nancy--the child she almost aborted? Nancy is busy being the delight of her mother, grandmother, aunts and uncles, and the rest of her family. Nancy is loved and cherished. And then there's James. When James' parents went to the Hillcrest Northwest Abortion Clinic they were distraught, confused, and misinformed. On their way into the clinic, they spoke briefly with sidewalk counselors who shared some new information about alternatives to abortion and support groups available to help people facing problem pregnancies. James' father went back outside to learn a little more. James' mother too came out of the clinic, to learn a little more. The couple was relieved to hear that there were pregnancy crisis centers where people will help to see the pregnancy through. When James was born, his mother told the sidewalk counselors, ``you saved my baby! Thank you.'' This year James, and his parents, will celebrate his second birthday. Recently, a baby shower was held for three kids who were saved from abortion. Here's their story. [From the Catholic Standard] Rescued: Baby shower is held for three saved from death by abortion (By Richard Szczepanowski) That fact that she was pregnant did not make Juana happy. She speaks little English, is unmarried and her salary from a part time job would not allow her to care for a baby. She was advised by her gynecologist to have an abortion. ``My doctor told me to go to the (Northwest abortion) clinic,'' said Juana, who asked that her real name not be used. Speaking to the Catholic Standard through an interpreter, she recalled that ``It was a Friday in the evening when I decided to have the abortion and the next day I went to the clinic.'' Outside the clinic that Saturday morning, Juana met sidewalk counselors from Catholics United for Life (CUL) who talked to her about her decision. Those counselors helped change Juana's mind and also saved the life of her baby. ``After I talked to the counselors, I felt bad,'' Juana recalled. ``I asked God to forgive me.'' Juana and two other women who changed their minds about abortions after speaking to CUL sidewalk counselors gathered Sunday at St. Thomas Apostle Church in Northwest Washington to celebrate the births of their children. The women and their children--Juana had a baby girl, the other two had boys--were the guests of honor at a baby shower sponsored by CUL. Sidewalk counselors, family, friends, and strangers gathered in the basement of the church to celebrate the little lives that were almost lost. ``This is more than a baby shower,'' said Peggy Veith, CUL's coordinator of sidewalk counselors at the Northwest abortion clinic on Georgia Avenue. ``This is a celebration of life and an affirmation of these women's decision for life.'' The baby shower--where the women were given gifts, promises of assistance and moral support in their new role as mothers--is part of CUL's dedication to life. ``We don't forget them after we talk them out of an abortion,'' said Adela Jimenez, a sidewalk counselor for four years. ``We offer them whatever they need: clothes, money for the hospital, even help finding a job.'' Mrs. Veith said that CUL has an arrangement with Providence Hospital's Center for Life where women talked out of an abortion can receive reduced-fee treatment. ``We don't just talk them out of an abortion and that's that,'' she said. ``We follow through during the pregnancy and after. We offer them emotional and material assistance.'' Both Mrs. Jimenez and Mrs. Vieth are still in touch with women they have counseled, and both are godmothers to babies they saved. Mrs. Jimenez said that in her four years of counseling, more than 150 babies have been saved. Mrs. Vieth estimated that more than 400 babies have been saved in the last eight years. ``Most tell us they really don't want abortions but they don't have money; they can't afford to pay the hospital bill,'' Mrs. Jimenez said. ``But we offer them any help they need and we also tell them that God doesn't like us to go to the clinic and do that (have an abortion).'' Mrs. Vieth said that some of the Hispanic women who come to the clinic really don't want to have abortions. ``Sometimes they are illegal aliens and they are afraid to go to hospital because they fear they will be discovered,'' she said. All of CUL's expenses are met through donations and all of the counselors are volunteers, Mrs. Jimenez said. There are about 450 people registered with CUL, and about 75 regularly go the clinics on Saturdays to do counseling. ``We love what we do,'' Mrs. Jimenez said. ``We share our time, because we love to do it, and when we save a baby everybody is happly.'' At Sunday's baby shower, everything--including the counselors who persuaded the new mothers not to have abortions--got a chance to hold the babies and make a fuss over those little lives that almost weren't. ``I'm very happy with the decision I made. It was the right decision,'' Juana said. ``I hope all women who are thinking about abortions change their minds and have their babies because that is the right decision.'' These are but a few examples, common everyday examples, of the tens of thousands of children who have been rescued from the clutches of abortionists, and their mothers who deeply appreciate that someone cared enough to get involved. If S. 636 becomes law, more babies will die because no one will be there to make that one, last, final appeal for their lives. Where will the pro-life volunteers be? In jail, and in debt which will bring a smile to the face of those who kill, but they will languish in jail for the crime of caring for the throwaways, for the crime of loving the unwanted, for the crime of seeking to provide comfort and safety for the innocent and the vulnerable. Reject this conference report, and together let us craft legislation designed to end the violence, not the last best hope that a baby may have. {time} 1910 Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter], the member of the Committee on Rules that got this rule out in such great order and with such great skill. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has been going through my mind a lot since the 19 children were found in the 2-room apartment in Chicago sitting on the floor fighting with the dogs over neck bones is that one of the things that right to life and all of us should really be concerned about is the children that are born, and, rather than standing outside clinics, we might want to go outside apartments and help those children who are here to indeed have a life. Mr. Speaker, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is designed to give the Department of Justice the necessary authority to fight a widespread campaign of interference with the access of women to reproductive health services. Today is not the first time that I have stood before this House and read through a list of examples of violence against women, their doctors and women's health clinics. But, since we are once again forced to plead the case, I will go through the list again. We are not talking about peaceful protest; we are talking about vandalism, arson, bombing, gassing, physical attacks, death threats, shootings and murder--against clinic staff, as well as their families, and against the women who need health services these clinics offer. Between 1977 and April of this year, over 1,000 acts of violence were reported against clinics and health care providers. These include: 36 bombings; 81 arsons; 131 death threats; 84 assaults; 2 kidnappings; 327 clinic ``invasions,'' and 1 murder. Just last year, Dr. David Gunn of Florida was shot and killed; murdered, by an anti-abortion activist. Such violence devastates the women and doctors involved, as well as giving pain to their families, coworkers and friends. But it also affects the thousands of women who need to use these clinics for their health care. More than 90 percent of the clinics that have experienced blockades or violence also provided other health services, in addition to abortions. And many of the clinics targetted for blockades and harassment are located in rural areas. They are frequently the only source for reproductive medical care for the women they serve. Disrupting the operation of these clinics deprives many women of badly needed medical services, above and beyond abortion. State and local law enforcement often do not have the resources to battle these large-scale, long-term operations, including trespass, vandalism, and assault. In other cases, they simply choose not to do so. Clearly, a federal remedy is the only answer if we are standardize law enforcement and offer all clinics the same protection. Mr. Speaker, it is time to end the procedural wrangling, the endless delays. It is time to enact the will of this House, which was first expressed in support of this legislation last November. It is time to come to the aid of all the women and health care workers, whose lives have been shadowed by this network of fear and orchestrated violence. These health care professionals and their patients deserve our help, and I urge my colleagues to provide it for them by voting, finally, to enact this vital legislation. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo]. (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. ESHOO Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on the freedom of access to clinic entrances bill. A nationwide campaign of anti-abortion, violence, vandalism and blockades is curtailing the availability of abortion services and endangering providers and patients. This bill provides Federal protection against unlawful and violent intimidation tactics used by anti-choice extremists. We must protect the constitutional right to express views on this controversial issue but we must acknowledge that this protection has been abused. We desperately need the safeguards that this bill provides. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of shaping national health care reform to provide universal coverage for all Americans for all health services, including reproductive services. Today, anti-abortion extremists are preventing women from receiving services which by law they are entitled to. This bill is necessary and long overdue. It is a clear statement that domestic terrorism will not be tolerated. I urge my colleagues to step away from a scorched-Earth approach so we can put an end to the senseless violence and abuse of our first amendment rights. Support the conference report. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink]. (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding this time to me and for his tremendous commitment to this essential issue. Mr. Speaker, Roe versus Wade established for this country the right of women to have abortions. That right is a right that should be protected by the law. What we have seen over the past 10 years is thousands of women seeking to exercise that right in abortion clinics being blocked, harassed, threatened. We have seen doctors murdered, abortion clinics bombed and arson committed in these premises. We are not proceeding today on the basis of some general feelings. We are proceeding because of the acts of violence that have occurred that deny this fundamental liberty to women across this country. There is nothing in the bill that has anything to do with preventing people who wish to exercise their right of free speech to protest, to stand on the streets and to hold a picket sign or to express their opinions about abortion. The bill clearly allows that. But this bill is necessary to protect the right that the courts of this country have given to the women of America. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Congress to adopt this bill. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton]. (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, let us set the record straight. What is being barred here by the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances bill FACE? The use of force. The threat of force, physical obstruction, intentional injury, intimidation, and interference. All of these are action words, Mr. Speaker. Pro-choice Americans do not want to have anything to do with these kinds of actions. First amendment rights are expressly protected in this bill. Illustrative of what is barred, is an incident 2 weeks ago here in the District of Columbia where the Hillcrest Women's Clinic in Northwest was barred from opening for 2 hours. Among other things, an anti-abortion protester used a bicycle lock to connect himself by the neck to the front door of the clinic. In the absence of a FACE statute the Federal courts have been driven to controversial injunctions. One of these is now before the Supreme Court: Madsen vs. Women's Health Center. During the recent oral argument the court cited with approval the FACE language, and thus we already have some indication that this is the constitutional way to go. FACE does not criminalize the content of speech, only the illegal conduct of anti-choice protesters. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters]. Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference agreement. Americans should not be prevented from receiving health care they choose for themselves. Unfortunately, too many women have had this basic right violated when they attempt to receive abortion services in this country. It is a tragedy that this legislation is necessary. I support the right of people to engage in civil disobedience to demonstrate their deeply held beliefs. However, when those beliefs manifest themselves violently--and when force is used to prevent doctors, clinicians and other health care providers from doing their job--it is the responsibility of civil society to punish the perpetrators of that violence. That is the purpose of this legislation. If I thought this bill inhibited the right of people to peacefully demonstrate or express their views, I would oppose it. However, this bill's penalties only apply to people who use force, threaten to use force or physically obstruct someone seeking reproductive health services. While abortion stirs many emotions, we must not allow zealots to impose their views on law abiding women who simply seek medical attention. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this important legislation. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to conclude debate on our side and to explain a motion to recommit that I shall offer following the conclusion of the remarks of the distinguished committee chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks]. The rules do not allow debate on a motion to recommit a conference report. As this bill left the House of Representatives, attorneys fees were awarded to the prevailing party, whether plaintiff or defendant. The Senate bill only allowed for attorneys fees and civil actions to be awarded to plaintiffs, and the conferees accepted the Senate position. So, someone who is a defendant in one of these lawsuits that we have been talking about that will be filed against those who demonstrate in front of an abortion clinic can go fight the lawsuit, and win the lawsuit and end up having to pay tens of thousands of dollars, or hundreds of thousands of dollars, out of their own pocket should they win the lawsuit. On the other hand, if the abortion clinic files a lawsuit against a demonstrator and wins, then the demonstrator not only has to pay his or her own attorneys fees, but also the abortion clinic's attorneys fees as well. {time} 1920 That is just flat out unfair. What my motion to recommit will do is quite simple: It will recommit the conference report to the committee of conference with instructions that the court may award to the prevailing party, whether plaintiff or defendant, other than the U.S. Government, reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. That means that if a demonstrator is hit with a frivolous lawsuit or a lawsuit without merit that ends up being dismissed by the court, or the jury finds that the demonstrator did not commit conduct which is prohibited under this bill, the demonstrator does not go broke because they were exercising their constitutional rights. This levels the playing field. I urge the membership to vote aye on the motion to recommit based on simple fairness. A no voted on the motion to recommit means that the lady with the scales of justice will have a good brick on one side of the scale, and justice will not be evenly dispensed. So I urge an aye vote on the motion to recommit, and yield back the balance of my time. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentlewoman from New York, [Ms. Velazquez]. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, once again I find myself standing in front of this House defending the Freedom Of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Enough time has been wasted with ridiculous and burdensome anti- choice delay tactics. More than 6 months have passed since the house overwhelmingly passed this legislation. The time for petty procedural games is over. Women of all races and colors are entitled to feel safe and protected while seeking and receiving abortion services that are their legal right. The doctor's that perform these services should also have the liberty to perform them without fearing for their lives. So-called ``pro-life'' extremists who commit violent and harmful acts and show a blatant disregard for the lives of those trying to deliver legal abortion services, must be stopped now. Mr. Speaker, lets stop wasting valuable time. I urge my colleagues to pass this conference report today! Mrs. COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 636, the conference report for the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. This bill is urgently needed in order to protect thousands of Americans who are being terrorized, harassed, and prevented from exercising their legal rights. S. 636 makes it a Federal crime to obstruct access to an abortion facility. This new law is needed because, unfortunately, despite the fact that abortions are legal in this country, a small and fanatic group of people have taken it upon themselves to determine whether or not other Americans will be able to exercise their legal rights to obtain an abortion. They are using vicious harassment and violence to make sure that the doctors, healthcare workers and women who work at healthcare facilities or use their services are not able to function without fear for their safety. Not only are their tactics frightening and offensive, but they are also illegal and S. 636 clearly establishes that their acts are in violation of Federal law. During the past decade, the number of incidents of violence occurring outside health facilities has swelled out of control. In my district in Illinois, the Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area's Midwest Center has been attacked repeatedly by protesters who have injected the noxious chemical butyric acid into the clinic and chained themselves together to ``counsel'' the women seeking health services at their facility. Other clinics throughout the Chicago metropolitan area have suffered repeated harassment as well. While we discuss this bill, its important to remember who the victims of these attacks are. Many women, including many of my constituents, have no health insurance and live below the poverty line. Clincs like Planned Parenthood are their main source of affordable health care. Yet these women, whether they are going to the clinic for an abortion, an HIV test, prenatal care, or to obtain contraceptive services to prevent pregnancy, are being blocked from entering the clinic through threats, violence, and intimidation. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act would put an end to this terror and mob rule by making it a Federal offense to use force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with someone seeking, or providing, reproductive health services or to destroy the property of a health service facility. This carefully worded legislation bans violence and harassment, but not simple speech and assembly, to protect American women, doctors, and health care workers from violent prosecution. It's time for the criminal terror to end and S. 636 is exactly the weapon we need to end it. I urge my colleagues to join me and pass this important bill. Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on S. 636, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. 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. That is why those of us who support this bill have come together on this issue, in spite of our differing views on the matter of choice. We believe that something must be done to stop the violence. We believe that individuals do not have the right to attempt to take the law into their own hands because they do not support a woman's right to obtain a safe, legal abortion. 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. One doctor has been killed. Another wounded. Patients and providers have been stalked and threatened. Clinic blockades and invasions, arson, chemical attacks and bomb threats are all a part of this campaign. Yet, State and local laws have not been enough to address the scope of the problem. But 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. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act makes it a Federal crime to obstruct access to a reproductive health clinic or to damage such a clinic. It further makes it a Federal offense to force, threaten, obstruct, injure, intimidate or interfere with anyone seeking or providing reproductive health services. And it extends these protections to places of religious worship so that anyone seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of freedom of religion at a religious facility is also safe from persecution and attack. The bill explicitly states that it does not apply to peaceful demonstrations, which are a form of expressive conduct that is protected by the First Amendment. It does not violate anyone's right-- pro-choice or anti-choice--to free speech or to demonstrate peacefully. Protestors only break this law when their peaceful demonstrations turn into physical obstructions or, even worse, violence. The bill protects patients and providers and ensures patient access, yet it allows those who choose to protest to do so peacefully, within their Constitutional rights. 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. For too long, we have watched demonstrators, using physical obstruction and intimidation, prevent women from exercising their Constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Enactment of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is long overdue. Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule on the Conference report on S. 636. It is critical that we pass the rule to ensure that women have the freedom to access reproductive health clinics. All over the country, antiabortionists are blocking clinic entrances * * * and targeting providers and their families. This violence has led to the murder of Dr. Gunn and the shooting of Dr. Tiller. This terrorism must stop. Violence for any cause is simply unconscionable. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances would help stop the violence. It would make it a Federal crime to block clinic entrances * * * and it also allows Federal law enforcement officials to step in if local police refuse to keep a clinic open. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed a woman's right to choose. While the decision is difficult, once it is made, women should not be prevented from or harassed while exercising their rights * * * and physicians must be allowed to practice without fear for their lives. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and final passage. The safety and peace of mind of so many are at stake. Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out in support of the rule for the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. The women of our Nation have been waiting a long time for this legislation which first passed this body in November by a voice vote. 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 physically well being cannot be allowed to be threatened in this most difficult time. Let's stop bickering over procedure and pass this rule. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, the question we must answer in deciding the merit of this legislation is what distinguishes constitutionally protected speech from action. If you believe that obstructing a clinic entrance to prevent another individual from exercising his or her constitutional rights is speech, then you might oppose this bill. If, however, you believe, as I do, that obstructing a clinic is an action not protected by the free speech clause, then you should support this legislation. We have no disagreement on the primacy of the first amendment. The right to disagree--and to disagree quite vocally--is precious to our democracy. Abortion is an issue of paramount importance. And, it is an intensely controversial issue that demands a national dialogue. Free speech is predicated ultimately on the value the American people have historically accorded it. It is critical that we do all we can to protect and promote a fundamental respect for speech--for the right to disagree, the right to advocate and argue, and the right to protest. As Members of Congress, we are sworn to uphold this right. If I thought that this legislation infringed on the freedom of speech guaranteed in the Constitution and upheld by our courts over two centuries, I would vigorously oppose its enactment. But this legislation does not inhibit speech, it punishes conduct--the act of obstructing the free exercise of constitutional rights by others. Obstruction of a clinic is not speech--it is action. It is, importantly, an action that interferes with the rights and privileges of other people. Many times the Supreme Court has examined the question of abortion. In every instance--despite a radically changed make-up of the Court over time--it has concluded that abortion is a fundamental right. Many in Congress disagree with that conclusion, but none of us is empowered to disregard it. Abortion is a fundamental right, and actions that intentionally interfere with that right ought to be a crime. I have said that obstruction is not speech. It is civil disobedience. Many great figures in world history have advocated civil disobedience. But none has contended that he or she should not be subject to arrest. Civil disobedience specifically contemplates arrest as a consequence--a fundamental distinction from other crimes and from constitutionally protected speech. Civil disobedience involves peaceful action, but that does not mean that it is not a crime, and it does not mean that it is strictly speech. Historically, civil disobedience has rarely been invoked to interfere with the rights of others. Rather, its historical usage has been to protest against that which is viewed as an infringement of one's own rights. This is a fundamental distinction between the actions of Operation Rescue--even when they are peaceful--and those of Thoreau, Ghandi and King. Mr. Speaker, today we are going to send a message to the American people. If we defeat this legislation, we will send the message that we encourage obstruction, violence, and interference with people's constitutionally guaranteed and reaffirmed rights as a legitimate method of resolving the important questions of the day. Rather, we ought to pass this legislation which balances the rights of speech with the affirmed right to obtain an abortion. Passage of this legislation will reaffirm the tradition of democratic governance with which this country has led the world. We will affirm the rights of free speech, of debate and protest, and the tradition of resolving conflict through the democratic legislative process. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote for this conference report. Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and also to commend those who have worked particularly hard to move this legislation forward. Chairman Schumer has shown tremendous leadership in crafting a responsible bill that brings consensus to this issue and provides much needed security to women and physicians. He, along with the other lead sponsor, Connie Morella, and Chairman Brooks, Pat Schroeder, Louise Slaughter and Jolene Unsoeld have worked tirelessly to make this vote possible and the considerable margins in support of this bill are largely to their credit. Mr. Speaker, for far too long we have allowed the rhetoric and actions of extremists to escalate. Some who could not achieve their goals through the political process have turned to violence and intimidation--and in doing so they have prevented women from exercising their constitutional rights. FACE offers us the opportunity to tell American women that we respect their rights and that we will protect their access to basic health care. I hope we will not let the heated rhetoric divert us from the very real fact that these clinics do more than provide abortion services. They provide family planning services, pre-natal care, and even adoption services. When we allow the violence at these clinics to continue, we jeopardize the health and indeed the very lives of women and their families. I also want to thank everyone involved in this legislation for addressing issues I worked to focus attention on several years ago. In 1992, after hearing of the unrelenting harassment Dr. Susan Wicklund faced in North Dakota, I introduced legislation to ensure that municipalities enforced their own anti-harassment laws to protect women and physicians from harassment away from the clinics. The conference report on face goes that extra step to provide important protection to women and physicians from the harassment that far too often follows them home, or pursues their children to school. This bill strikes a very careful balance between the cherished right to protest and the rights of women and physicians. American women and physicians have waited far too long for the protection this bill offers. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation. Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, the right of a woman to exercise control over her own body is a freedom just as important as other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, like the freedom of speech and practice of religion. Some disagree with this view, and I respect their right to express their opinions and to peacefully demonstrate against the exercise of rights, including those guaranteed by the Constitution. But the expression of principled objection and discussion of ideas must not intimidate or inflict harm on others who seek to express opposite views or exercise the right to obtain reproductive health services legally available to them. We cannot allow the entrances of reproductive health clinics to continue to serve as battlegrounds. A physical battle is being waged out there, and we need to do something to stop it. Patients deserve unobstructed access to the services they need. Health clinic workers have a right to work in a safe environment. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or ``FACE,'' provides them with reasonable remedies to advance these commonsense rights. And the time for these remedies is now. As we know, last Thursday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Madsen versus Women's Health Center, the case in which the Court will decide whether Florida's buffer safety zones around clinics and health care workers' homes violate the first amendment's protections of speech and association. Let us not confuse FACE and the safety zone law in question here. FACE does not include such zones, and the Madsen case does not directly involve blocking clinic entrances or violence against patients or health care providers. Thus, there is no need to wait for the Court's decision in Madsen to enact the different protection-oriented measures of FACE. In fact, when the Supreme Court heard Madsen last week, the Justices themselves noted the contrast between the narrowly tailored civil and criminal penalties in FACE and the broader Florida buffer zone law. Passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act would immediately help bring an end to harassment at and damage to health clinics and places of religious worship, which are also included in the conference report. On the clinic front, the list of infractions is long: the murder of Dr. David Gunn, the shooting of Dr. George Tiller, 36 bombings, 84 cases of arson, 60 attempted arsons, 35 clinic invasions, 498 acts of vandalism, 86 assaults, 149 death threats, 29 burglaries, 2 kidnapings, and countless cases of stalking of clinic employees. Let's act now to curb the growth of this shameful list. I urge my colleagues to vote for the conference report. Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about abortion. It's not even about equal protection under the law. Unfortunately, it achieves the opposite. S. 636 was crafted and moved through the Senate and the House by those who are of the opinion that people who oppose abortion should not be allowed their right to free speech. I want to make one thing clear before I address the contents of this bill: Opponents to S. 636 are in no way condoning violence. In fact, the very stance of being pro-life implies a reverence for all life and a commitment to protecting it. Look at the murder trial over the abortion doctor, Dr. David Gunn: justice has been served. Dr. Gunn's murderer was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison on March 5 of this year. Nevertheless, this murder has served as the impetus for a whole new course of action against people who are primarily law abiding nonviolent protesters. Dr. Gunn's murderer was not a pro-lifer. He proved that the minute he pulled the trigger. While it is my strong belief that people who commit violent acts should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, this bill simply extends beyond its stated purpose. Think about this: by voting for S. 636, we are saying that our present legal statutes are not sufficient to deliver justice to the American people. This is just not so. We don't need another bill to protect people seeking abortions. We already have at least six Federal laws to punish these and related acts. What this bill really does is to single out the free speech of a particular group of people exercising their constitutional rights. So why do we need this legislation? We don't, unless, like the writers of this bill, you think the Federal Government should regulate free speech. The writers of the FACE bill are clearly ``two-faced.'' They seek to legislate free speech in the name of so-called free access. Under the FACE bill, if two people were engaged in a fist fight outside of a clinic, one opposed to abortion and the other seeking the abortion, only the person opposed to the abortion would be subject to penalties under this bill. Like the recent Supreme Court ruling on the interpretation of RICO, S. 636 will severely impinge upon first amendment rights of those who oppose abortion. Groups which have historically organized for social protest or civil disobedience will find themselves hampered by the mere threat of a RICO claim and/or civil and criminal penalties under this bill. In addition, this bill levies penalties of up to $10,000 for peaceful, nonviolent protesters. This means a grandmother simply praying the rosary outside an abortion clinic could be arrested and fined under the wording of the FACE bill. This is an outrage. Since when did nonviolent civil disobedience count as constitutionally unprotected free speech? This bill does not reflect the constitutional liberties our country prides itself on. I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats who so adamantly champion free speech rights to oppose this dangerous bill. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, due to a personal tragedy, the death of my closest friend, Dr. Stephen Kelley, I will be unable to cast my vote today against the conference report on S. 636, the so-called Freedom of Access to Clinics Act of 1994, so that I may attend his funeral in Somerset, KY. While I loathe to miss any vote, particularly one as important as this, there are rare and extraordinary occasions when we must put family and friends above all else. This is one of those occasions. However, I want to reiterate to my colleagues my continued opposition to S. 636. Had I been able to cast my vote today, my vote would have been an unequivocal no. I am deeply alarmed about the chilling precedent this bill would set. This bill does nothing more than jeopardize the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and assembly for a single group, pro- life supporters, in order to appease another group, the pro-abortion lobby. This is a dangerous precedent indeed. I am certainly not opposed to stopping violence. Violent acts can never be tolerated, and those criminals must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We already have laws on the books to punish those who engage in violence, and we have seen those individuals prosecuted and punished. But, that is not what this bill is about. This bill is about an attempt to silence peaceful protests by pro-life supporters by intimidating them into silence. Mr. Speaker, this bill flies in the face of the very principles on which this Nation was founded. I urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation. Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on S. 636, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Violent and obstructive acts against reproductive health care clinics, their patients, and personnel, have escalated appallingly in the past few years. In my home State of Connecticut, an organized campaign of harassment, physical interference, and terrorism has resulted in a sevenfold increase in acts targeted against reproductive health clinics and the women who visit them. The use of violence to express political views is unacceptable. In my district, clinics in Norwich, Middletown, Willimantic, and Old Saybrook have experienced bomb threats, blockades, and trespass. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act provides relief for clinics and their patients by prohibiting obstruction, force, or threat of force to block access to reproductive health services. At the same time, the bill specifically protects the exercise of free speech such as peaceful picketing and other expressive conduct. The murder of Dr. David Gunn in Florida and the organized bombing campaign against reproductive health care clinics have naturally received the greatest public attention. But these violent acts are the tip of the iceberg. Clinic personnel and their patients are being physically assaulted on a daily basis across the nation. In one case of clinic violence, the husband of a Wisconsin abortion clinic director was assaulted while guarding the clinic against attack by anti-choice demonstrators. He discovered a protester in the parking lot behind the clinic taking down the license plate numbers of all clinic staff. The protester threw the clinic director's husband to the ground, shattering his arm and requiring lengthy rehabilitation. Unfortunately, this type of violence against clinic personnel and their families occurs every day. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act provides federal legal protections to reproductive health care facilities, their staff and their patients. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I move the previous question on the conference report. The previous question was ordered. motion to recommit offered by mr. sensenbrenner Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). Is the gentleman opposed to the conference report? Mr. SENSENBRENNER. In its present form, Mr. Speaker, I am. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin moves to recommit the bill S. 636 to the Committee of Conference with instructions to adopt the House language on attorneys fees, that the court may award to the prevailing party, whether plaintiff or defendant, other than the United States, reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. There was no objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, 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. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of passage of the conference report. This is a 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit, which may be followed by a 5-minute vote on passage. The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas 193, nays 222, not voting 17, as follows: [Roll No. 158] YEAS--193 Allard Applegate Archer Armey Bachus (AL) Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Ballenger Barcia Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bateman Bentley Bereuter 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 Dornan Dreier Duncan Dunn Ehlers Emerson Everett Ewing Fawell Fields (TX) Fowler Gallegly Gekas Geren Gilchrest Gillmor Gingrich Goodlatte Goodling Goss Grams Grandy Greenwood Gunderson Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hamilton Hancock Hansen Hastert Hayes Hefley Hobson Hoekstra Hoke Holden Horn Houghton Huffington Hunter Hutchinson Hutto Hyde Inglis Inhofe Istook Johnson (CT) Johnson, Sam Kanjorski Kasich Kildee Kim King Kingston Klink Knollenberg Kyl LaFalce Lazio Levy Lewis (CA) Lewis (FL) Lightfoot Linder Lipinski Livingston Manton Manzullo Mazzoli McCandless McCrery McDade McHugh McKeon McMillan McNulty Meyers Mica Michel Miller (FL) Minge Mollohan Moorhead Murphy Murtha Myers Nussle Oberstar Ortiz Orton Oxley Packard Parker Paxon Penny Peterson (MN) Petri Pombo Porter Portman Poshard Quillen Quinn Rahall Ravenel Regula Ridge Roberts Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roth Royce Santorum Sarpalius Saxton Schaefer Schiff Sensenbrenner Shaw Shuster Skeen Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (OR) Smith (TX) Solomon Spence Stearns Stenholm Stump Stupak Sundquist Talent Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Tejeda Thomas (CA) Thomas (WY) Torkildsen Upton Volkmer Vucanovich Walker Walsh Weldon Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) NAYS--222 Abercrombie Ackerman Andrews (ME) Andrews (NJ) Andrews (TX) Bacchus (FL) Baesler Barca Barlow Barrett (WI) Becerra Beilenson Berman Bilbray Bishop Boehlert Bonior Boucher Brewster Brooks Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant Byrne Cantwell Cardin Carr Castle Chapman Clay Clayton Clyburn Coleman Collins (IL) 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 Farr Fazio Fields (LA) Filner Fingerhut Flake Ford (MI) Ford (TN) Frank (MA) Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frost Furse Gallo Gejdenson Gephardt Gibbons Gilman Glickman Gonzalez Gordon Green Gutierrez Hamburg Harman Hastings Hefner Hilliard Hinchey Hoagland Hochbrueckner Hoyer Hughes Inslee Jacobs Jefferson Johnson (GA) Johnson (SD) Johnson, E. B. Johnston Kaptur Kennedy Kennelly Kleczka Klein Klug Kolbe Kopetski Kreidler Lambert Lancaster Lantos LaRocco Leach Lehman Levin Lewis (GA) Lloyd Lowey Machtley Maloney Mann Margolies-Mezvinsky Markey Martinez Matsui McCloskey McCurdy McDermott McHale McInnis McKinney Meehan Meek Menendez Mfume Miller (CA) Mineta Mink Moakley Molinari Montgomery Moran Morella Nadler Neal (MA) Obey Olver Owens Pallone Pastor Payne (NJ) Payne (VA) Pelosi Peterson (FL) Pickett Pickle Pomeroy Pryce (OH) Ramstad Rangel Reed Reynolds Roemer Rose Rostenkowski Roukema Rowland Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Sanders Sangmeister Sawyer Schenk Schroeder Schumer Scott Sharp Shays Shepherd Sisisky Skaggs Slattery Slaughter Smith (IA) Snowe Spratt Stokes Strickland Studds Swift Synar Tanner Thompson Thornton Thurman Torres Torricelli Towns Traficant Tucker Unsoeld Valentine Velazquez Vento Visclosky Washington Waters Watt Waxman Wheat Whitten Williams Wilson Wise Woolsey Wyden Wynn Yates Zeliff Zimmer NOT VOTING--17 Bevill Blackwell Clement Doolittle Fish Foglietta Herger Laughlin Long McCollum Neal (NC) Price (NC) Richardson Rogers Serrano Stark Swett {time} 1944 The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr. Doolittle for, with Mr. Long against. Mr. McCollum for, with Mr. Stark against. Mr. Rogers for, with Mr. Swett against. Messrs, KLEIN, VENTO, and MILLER of California changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Messrs, TAUZIN, PACKARD, YOUNG of Alaska, SAM JOHNSON of Texas, GOODLING, GREENWOOD, and McCRERY, changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' So the motion to recommit was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). The question is on the conference report. 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the Chair's prior announcement, this is a 5-minute vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, noes 174, not voting 17, as follows: [Roll No. 159] AYES--241 Abercrombie Ackerman Andrews (ME) Andrews (NJ) Andrews (TX) Bacchus (FL) Baesler Barca Barrett (WI) Becerra Beilenson Bereuter Berman Bilbray Bishop Boehlert Bonior Boucher Brewster Brooks Brown (CA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Bryant Byrne Cantwell Cardin Carr Castle Chapman Clay Clayton Clyburn Coleman Collins (IL) Collins (MI) Condit Conyers Cooper Coppersmith Coyne Cramer Cunningham Danner Darden DeFazio DeLauro Dellums Derrick Deutsch Dicks Dingell Dixon Dooley Dunn Durbin Edwards (CA) Edwards (TX) Engel English Eshoo Evans Farr Fawell Fazio Fields (LA) Filner Fingerhut Flake Ford (MI) Ford (TN) Fowler Frank (MA) Franks (CT) Franks (NJ) Frost Furse Gallo Gejdenson Gephardt Geren Gibbons Gilman Glickman Gonzalez Gordon Green Greenwood Gutierrez Hamburg Hamilton Harman Hastings Hefner Hilliard Hinchey Hoagland Hochbrueckner Horn Houghton Hoyer Huffington Hughes Inslee Jacobs Jefferson Johnson (CT) Johnson (GA) Johnson (SD) Johnson, E. B. Johnston Kennedy Kennelly Kleczka Klein Klug Kolbe Kopetski Kreidler Lambert Lancaster Lantos LaRocco Lazio Leach Lehman Levin Lewis (GA) Lloyd Lowey Machtley Maloney Mann Margolies-Mezvinsky Markey Martinez Matsui McCandless McCloskey McCurdy McDermott McHale McHugh McInnis McKinney McMillan Meehan Meek Menendez Meyers Mfume Miller (CA) Mineta Minge Mink Moakley Molinari Moran Morella Nadler Neal (MA) Obey Olver Orton Owens Pallone Pastor Payne (NJ) Payne (VA) Pelosi Peterson (FL) Pickett Pickle Pomeroy Porter Pryce (OH) Ramstad Rangel Reed Reynolds Ridge Roemer Rose Rostenkowski Roukema Rowland Roybal-Allard Rush Sabo Sanders Sangmeister Sawyer Schenk Schiff Schroeder Schumer Scott Sharp Shays Shepherd Sisisky Skaggs Slattery Slaughter Smith (IA) Snowe Spratt Stokes Strickland Studds Swift Synar Tanner Thomas (CA) Thompson Thornton Thurman Torkildsen Torres Torricelli Towns Traficant Unsoeld Valentine Velazquez Vento Visclosky Washington Waters Watt Waxman Wheat Williams Wilson Wise Woolsey Wyden Wynn Yates Zeliff Zimmer NOES--174 Allard Applegate Archer Armey Bachus (AL) Baker (CA) Baker (LA) Ballenger Barcia Barlow Barrett (NE) Bartlett Barton Bateman Bentley Bilirakis Bliley Blute Boehner Bonilla Borski Browder Bunning Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Canady Clinger Coble Collins (GA) Combest Costello Cox Crane Crapo de la Garza Deal DeLay Diaz-Balart Dickey Dornan Dreier Duncan Ehlers Emerson Everett Ewing Fields (TX) Gallegly Gekas Gilchrest Gillmor Gingrich Goodlatte Goodling Goss Grams Grandy Gunderson Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hancock Hansen Hastert Hayes Hefley 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 Linder Lipinski Livingston Manton Manzullo Mazzoli McCrery McDade McKeon McNulty Mica Michel Miller (FL) Mollohan Montgomery Moorhead Murphy Murtha Myers Nussle Oberstar Ortiz Oxley Packard Parker Paxon Penny Peterson (MN) Petri Pombo Portman Poshard Quillen Quinn Rahall Ravenel Regula Roberts Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Roth Royce 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 (WY) Tucker Upton Volkmer Vucanovich Walker Walsh Weldon Whitten Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) NOT VOTING--17 Bevill Blackwell Clement Doolittle Fish Foglietta Herger Laughlin Long McCollum Neal (NC) Price (NC) Richardson Rogers Serrano Stark Swett {time} 1953 The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr. Long for, with Mr. Doolittle against. Mr. Stark for, with Mr. McCollum against. Mr. Swett for, with Mr. Rogers against. So the conference report was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. ____________________