[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.

                          ____________________