[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 58 (Thursday, May 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINIC ENTRANCES ACT OF 1994--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
now proceed to the consideration of the conference report on S. 636,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the House to 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, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to
recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this report,
signed by a majority of the conferees.
The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of May 2, 1994.)
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the order previously entered, there
will be 90 minutes of debate on the conference report, equally divided
and controlled in the usual form.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senate now has before it the
conference report on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of
1994. This legislation will protect women, doctors, nurses, and other
health providers from the tactics of violence and intimidation that
have closed clinics, forced doctors to wear bulletproof vests, and
blocked access to reproductive health care across the country.
The Senate passed this legislation by a vote of 69 to 30 last
November, and the need for it continues to be strong. So far this year,
dozens of new blockades, acts of vandalism, death threats, assaults
against abortion providers, attempted bombings, and bomb threats have
been carried out against clinics, their patients, and their personnel.
More than 1,000 acts of violence against abortion providers, over 100
cases of arson and bombings, and hundreds of blockades, invasions and
acts of vandalism against clinics have been documented throughout the
country over the past 15 years.
Clinics continue to be under siege. The health care providers who
work there continue to be in fear for their lives.
This legislation is designed to prevent this reprehensible conduct
and ensure that it will be punished when it occurs.
It establishes a new Federal criminal offense prohibiting force,
threat of force, physical obstruction or destruction of property
intended to interfere with access to reproductive health services. It
establishes a right to bring Federal civil suits to enjoin such conduct
and to obtain damages to compensate the victims.
The bills passed by the Senate and the House last November were very
similar. There were only three substantive differences. On each of
these, the House receded to the Senate position.
First, the conference report contains the language added by Senator
Hatch's amendment prohibiting violence and obstruction at places of
religious worship. This language creates Federal criminal penalties and
civil remedies for the use or threat of force or physical obstruction
to interfere with religious freedom at a place of worship. The House
bill contained no such provision.
When Senator Hatch offered this amendment on the Senate floor in
November, I accepted it. This provision adds appropriate new Federal
protection for religious freedom at places of worship. The House
conferees agreed, and accepted Senator Hatch's provision.
The second difference between the Senate and House versions is that
the Senate bill provided lower maximum penalties for nonviolent
offenses. Here too, the conference report contains the Senate
provisions.
The House bill provided for maximum jail terms of 1 year for the
first offense and 3 years for subsequent offenses, regardless of the
nature of the offense. The Senate bill contained the same maximum
penalties for violent, threatening or destructive conduct. But for
nonviolent offenses the maximums were cut in half--6 months for the
first offense, and 18 months or subsequent offenses.
The Senate bill also contained far lower maximum criminal fines for
nonviolent offenses. The House bill provided maximum fines of $100,000
for the first offense and $250,000 for subsequent offenses, regardless
of the nature of the offense. Under the Senate bill, the maximum fines
for nonviolent offenses were only one-tenth of the House amounts--
$10,000 for the first offense and $25,000 for subsequent offenses.
The lower maximum penalties in the Senate bill for nonviolent
offenses are appropriate, and the conference adopted them. Nonviolent
obstructions of clinics do not warrant the same maximum penalties as
violence, death threats, or destruction of property.
At the same time, the penalties remain substantial enough to help
deter the blockaders--especially those who are inclined to repeat the
offense. If the maximums were set even lower, the penalties would not
create the necessary deterrence--as the experience under more lenient
State and local laws has shown.
The third difference between the two bills is that the House bill
allowed any person injured by a violation to bring a civil suit for
injunctive relive and damages. The Senate bill limited such suits to
persons seeking to obtain or provide services from the facility. This
limitation, which was included in the Senate bill following discussions
with Senators Durenberger and Kassebaum, means that demonstrators at a
facility would not obtain new civil remedies. The conference report
adopts the Senate position.
In short, the bill now before the Senate is essentially the same bill
that the Senate passed last November.
It is carefully drafted so that it does not restrict activities
protected by the first amendment. Those who are picketing peacefully
outside clinics, praying or singing, or engaging in sidewalk counseling
and similar activities that do not block the entrances have nothing to
fear from the law. Those activities are protected by the first
amendment, and this legislation does not restrict them.
Nor does this legislation discriminate against any particular
viewpoint. It does not penalize the expression of a point of view in
nonviolent, nonobstructive ways. The only conduct it prohibits is
violent or obstructive conduct that is far outside any constitutional
protection.
The case of Madsen versus Women's Health Center, recently argued
before the Supreme Court, will not affect the constitutionality of this
legislation. In that case the Court is considering the
constitutionality of a State court injunction creating buffer zones
around a clinic and the homes of clinic staff members. The injunction
prohibits demonstrators from congregating within a specified area--even
if they are not blocking the entrances and even if they are on public
sidewalks.
The legislation before us does not contain any such restrictions. It
prohibits activities around a clinic only when they physically obstruct
the entrances. And the demonstrators challenging the injunction in the
case have expressly conceded the constitutionality of the portions of
the Court's order that prohibit physical obstruction of the entrances.
In other words, that issue is not before the Supreme Court.
So even if the Supreme Court were to strike down or cut back the
buffer zones at issue in the case, the narrower prohibitions in this
legislation will be unaffected.
The case is relevant to this legislation in one respect, however. The
Supreme Court's decision will give important guidance to Federal courts
that will be asked to issue injunctions under this measure. After the
case is decided, the courts will know with greater certainty how far
they may go in restraining unlawful activities around the clinics.
Existing laws are clearly inadequate to address the serious problems
of clinic violence. The current patchwork of State and local laws can
not effectively address the interstate, nationwide pattern of clinic
violence. Often, the penalties assessed are so weak that they serve as
no deterrent. If they did, the woman who shot and wounded a doctor at a
clinic in Wichita last summer would have been prevented from doing so,
because she would have been serving serious prison terms for dozens of
violations of local laws that she had previously committed throughout
the country.
The Federal racketeering laws are also not an adequate substitute for
this legislation.
The Supreme Court ruled last January that abortion clinics targeted
by blockades and violence may sue under RICO. But it did not hold that
antiabortion activities necessarily violate RICO. In fact, much of the
conduct covered by this legislation would not be a violation of RICO.
Activities commonly occurring at abortion clinics--assault, destruction
of property, acid attacks, physical obstruction--would not constitute
predicate acts under RICO and therefore could not form the basis for
finding a criminal enterprise under RICO.
RICO is no substitute for this legislation, which is carefully
tailored to address the pattern of disruptive and intimidating conduct
that has plagued abortion providers and patients across the country.
This legislation has broad support. Organizations concerned with
women's rights and women's reproductive health have made its enactment
a top priority. Law enforcement authorities at the Federal, State, and
local level have endorsed it. Health care providers have urged us to
enact it without delay. And civil liberties groups have concluded that
it passes constitutional muster.
It is long past time to end the massive wave of violence,
intimidation, and harassment directed at clinic patients and personnel
across the country. The right answer to a national campaign of violence
and obstruction is national legislation to end it. I urge my colleagues
to vote for adoption of the conference report on the Clinic Violence
Act.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum]
is recognized for such time as she may consume.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I agree with the need to enact Federal
legislation which will enable the Department of Justice and the Federal
judiciary to intervene when protests escalate to the level of violence
and destruction that have been directed against abortion clinics in our
country. The freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution does not
include bombings, vandalism, assault, arson, destruction of
property,and physically preventing people from entering medical
clinics. Unfortunately, it took the murder of Dr. David Gunn in
Pensacola, FL, for many people to recognize the danger in the
escalating pattern of violence that has been directed against abortion
providers in this country.
Wichita, KA, was the site of one of the longest, most widely
publicized clinic blockade actions. Operation Rescue's ``Summer of
Mercy'' in 1991 tore my own city of Wichita apart--and deepened the
divisions between those who support the legality of abortion and those
who oppose. The protest created a climate of intolerance and anger
which permeated Wichita. In the almost 3 years since the protest began,
the effects can still be felt--tempers still flare, blockade actions
are still attempted, wanted posters are distributed. The animosity
between the two sides of this very divisive debate continues to deepen.
The Federal Government has a legitimate role to play in protests that
are characterized by an esclating pattern of violence, an inability of
local law enforcement officials to control the violence, and actions
designed to prevent people from accessing or providing services
protected by the Constitution. This could be extended to other areas,
but the one issue before us is this one. The Freedom of Access to
Clinic Entrances Act of 1993 identifies an appropriate role for Federal
intervention into violent protests against abortion clinics.
Mr. President, I support the conference report on the Freedom of
Access to Clinic Entrances Act and will vote for its passage. The House
accepted the Senate language on the decreased punishments for
nonviolent protesters, the language which limited the civil right of
action to those seeking to obtain or provide pregnancy-related
services, and the provisions extending protections to churches and
other religious institutions.
However, there is a provision related to the award of attorney fees
in the conference report that I find troubling, and I think all Members
should be aware of it. It reads as follows:
(T)he court may award appropriate relief, including
temporary, preliminary or premanent injunctive relief and
compensatory and punitive damages, as well as the costs of
suit and reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses.
Mr. President, the forms of relief mentioned in this provision--
injunctive, compensatory, and punitive--are those awarded to
plaintiffs, not to defendants. Therefore, it would be reasonable for a
judge reading this language to conclude that, on its face, the
provision allows attorney fees to be awarded to plaintiffs but, under
no circumstances, may they be awarded to defendants. The bill manager
claims that is not what is intended. But Mr. President, that is what
this provision says, and I am afraid that is the way courts will apply
it.
The authors of the provision claim that report language makes it
clear that defendants can be awarded attorney fees if the plaintiff's
action is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. However, the
trend in the courts has been to disregard legislative history and
simply interpret the actual language of statutes. Again, the actual
language of this bill does not provide attorney fees for defendants
under any circumstances. I would argue that, if the intent of the bill
is to allow defendants to be awarded attorney fees under certain
circumstances, that should be clearly stated in the bill itself.
The authors claim this provision of the final bill is modeled on
current civil rights laws. I think that is the intent, but their use of
the term ``modeled'' is somewhat misleading. The civil rights statute
says that attorney fees are available to the prevailing party,'' and
that is the way I believe it should be. Granted, the courts have
interpreted prevailing party to mean that only the plaintiff can
receive attorney fees unless the suit they file is clearly frivolous.
If the suit is clearly frivolous, the defendant can recover attorney
fees.
It seems to me that, if the freedom of access to clinic entrances
bill were truly modeled on our civil rights laws, it would incorporate
the prevailing party language that is in the civil rights law. It does
not. Instead, it is--at most--a weak attempt to incorporate the outcome
of civil rights lawsuits.
Mr. President, the Senate should strive to write laws that are clear
in their intent and positive in their effect. This specific provision
of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is, I suggest, poorly
drafted. I think it will be misinterpreted, and I think it will
increase the number of lawsuits that are filed as a result of this
bill. I am disappointed this provision survived the conference with the
House.
Nevertheless, Mr. President, I believe this bill is an important
means of clarifying what has become a dramatic, emotional, escalating
series of violence against our clinics which are operating under their
constitutional rigths.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield such time as the Senator from Rhode Island might
desire.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.
Chafee].
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of
the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. I was an original
cosponsor of the bill, I strongly support this conference report, and I
am pleased that it has been approved by the House. This bill provides
critical relief to the many health clinics around the country which
have been targeted by violent extremists.
No matter what one's views are on the issue of abortion rights, one
cannot help but be shocked and outraged by the violence that has
occurred outside health clinics that offer abortion-related services.
Perhaps the most notorious crime committed against clinic employees was
the murder of Dr. David Gunn, the Florida physician who was shot to
death last year.
Thankfully, we have had no such murders in Rhode Island. But the
Planned Parenthood Clinic in Providence is no stranger to threats and
intimidation. In the past 2 years:
The medical director's face appeared on a wanted poster that was sent
to his office and home; the clinic was blockaded twice by activists,
and the director's driveway was mined with nails which blew out four
tires and injured his wife; the clinic was splashed with red exerox
toner and had to be repainted--only to be splashed again with
florescent green paint; the clinic was repeatedly picketed and staff
were identified by name and told their home would also be picketed; a
restraining order was granted to one of the clinic's employees to stop
two individuals from following her, and the order was later violated.
Mr. President, I am all for free speech, and I respect the views of
those who are opposed to abortion. But the issues before us today are
not free speech or abortion rights--the issues before us are violence,
intimidation and destruction of property. Clinics around the country
have been bombed, set on fire and blocked--all in the name of free
speech. This is not passive resistance. This is illegal and destructive
behavior, and it is time for us to put a stop to it.
The legislation before us today does put a stop to this. It makes it
a Federal offense to block access to health clinics that offer
reproductive health services and makes the damage or destruction of
property at such facilities a Federal crime. Victims of clinic violence
will now be able to seek injunctive relief and civil damages against
the perpetrators, and the Attorney General and State attorneys general
will have new enforcement roles through the courts.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
important legislation.
Mr. President, I congratulate those who have had a leading hand in
the formation of the drafting and enactment of this legislation.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this conference
report.
I thank the Chair and I thank the managers.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we are ready
to vote for the conference report of the Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act. This legislation is desperately needed to stop the
violence and intimidation at the entrances of women's health care
clinics across America that provide constitutionally protected abortion
services.
In the first 4 months of this year, there have been 182 reports of
hate mail or harassing phone calls toward doctors and medical providers
who work at these clinics, toward clinic staff, and toward clinic
patients. There have been 24 cases of vandalism against clinics, 12
death threats to clinic personnel, and four cases of stalking of a
staff member or patient away from a clinic. Last fall, a clinic in
Peoria, IL, which has been providing women's health care services for
19 years, was firebombed. This legislation makes the intent of Congress
crystal clear: The violence must stop.
This legislation targets any act of force, threat of force, or
physical obstruction involving reproductive health centers only if
there is intentional injury, intimidation, or interference with a
person trying to obtain or provide pregnancy or abortion-related
services.
This legislation has been narrowly crafted. It does not punish anyone
for their views. It protects the rights of peaceful protests to
demonstrate. It is modeled after Federal civil rights laws that
prohibit unlawful interference with an individual's attempt to exercise
the right to vote. It does not cover peaceful picketing, praying,
singing, leafleting, or sidewalk counseling. And the conference
committee has maintained the Senate-approved differentiation of
penalties for violent versus nonviolent offenders who obstruct access
to these clinics.
The passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act will
help local and State law enforcement, who, despite their best
intentions, have been unable to adequately safeguard medical providers,
patients, and clinics against this dangerous activity. Attorneys
general throughout the United States are looking forward to this
legislation going into effect in order to protect women and medical
providers who are currently under assault by violent demonstrators.
Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in the Senate to strongly
support this legislation. I believe it will make a real difference.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Utah such
time as may be necessary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and ranking member of
the committee. I appreciate her leadership in the committee.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator hold just a second? On the allocation
of time, is the time divided between myself and Senator Kassebaum?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time is divided in the usual form,
which means that half the time is controlled by the manager of the
conference report and the other half controlled by the Senator who
opposes the conference report.
Mr. KENNEDY. So as I understand that, then the time in opposition
would be under the control of the Senator from Utah.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If the Chair may continue, if the ranking
manager is not opposed to the conference report, then the time is
controlled by the minority leader in opposition to the conference
report, or to his designee.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the opposition time be
allocated to the Senator from Utah.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to state my reasons for
opposing S. 636 in its final form.
S. 636 targets peaceful civil disobedience, not violence.
Like millions and millions of other Americans opposed to abortion, I
categorically and unequivocally condemn acts of violence against
abortion clinics and their personnel. Such desperate acts of violence
are no answer to the violence of abortion itself.
Unfortunately, S. 636--the so-called FACE bill--is not really about
stopping violence outside abortion clinics. It is about punishing
purely peaceful civil disobedience on behalf of a cause that is not
politically correct.
My proof for these two propositions is simple and irrefutable. On the
Senate floor, I offered a substitute amendment to S. 636 that contained
the same harsh penalties for violence as S. 636 contains, but that
would have subjected purely peaceful pro-life civil disobedience to
penalties comparable to civil disobedience on behalf of other causes.
Senator Smith offered an amendment to the same effect. Both amendments
were defeated.
Moreover, if stopping violence were really the aim of S. 636, it is
worth noting that States already have and impose even more severe
penalties for violent activity than S. 636 would impose. For example,
the man who killed David Gunn in Florida faced a possible death
sentence and received life imprisonment. Nothing in S. 636 is going to
provide any additional deterrence against such violence.
The real impact that S. 636 will have reveals a far more disturbing
agenda--an agenda that, not surprisingly, has been disguised under the
camouflage of anti-violence rhetoric.
S. 636, by design and in its practical operation, will serve as a
powerful weapon against those persons who engage in entirely peaceful
civil disobedience against abortion. S. 636 is, simply put, an
oppressively one-sided, viewpoint-based attack on politically incorrect
men and women who peacefully demonstrate their opposition to the taking
of unborn human life.
Peaceful protesters who violate S. 636--a grandmother, for example,
sitting silently with a group of others on a sidewalk outside an
abortion clinic--will face a criminal penalty of six months in jail and
a $10,000 fine for a first violation, and 1\1/2\ years in jail and a
$25,000 fine for any subsequent violation.
In addition, S. 636 will also authorize private parties, the Attorney
General, and state attorneys general to seek large civil penalties
against these peaceful demonstrators. For example, private parties
could obtain $5,000 per violation plus unlimited punitive damages, and
both the U.S. Attorney General and state attorneys general could obtain
civil penalties of $15,000 per violation.
S. 636 also contains a remarkably biased attorney's fees provision
under which prevailing plaintiffs will be able to receive attorney's
fees from the defendants, but prevailing defendants will rarely, if
ever, be able to do so. Such a one-sided attorney's fee provision may
well make sense in civil rights and other litigation, where the
plaintiff is typically an individual and the defendant is a corporate
entity. This alignment, however, will rarely be the case in civil
litigation under S. 636. Instead, we will have the bizarre spectacle of
individual defendants fending off litigation brought by a well-funded
business, with these individuals liable to pay the attorney's fees of
the business if they lose, but unable to collect attorney's fees
themselves if they prevail. S. 636 thereby invites--indeed, assures--
abusive litigation intended to bankrupt those who engage in peaceful
pro-life demonstrations.
I respectfully submit that this blatant, viewpoint-based attack on
peaceful civil disobedience betrays core principles that we all should
cherish. Our American tradition recognizes the fundamental distinction
between acts of violent lawlessness and acts of peaceful civil
disobedience. Acts of violent lawlessness appropriately invite severe
penalties. But acts of peaceful civil disobedience--mass sit-ins, for
example, that draw on the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King,
Jr.--should not be subjected to steep penalties.
Such acts are, of course, not privileged. Civil disobedience is, by
definition, unlawful. Acts of peaceful civil disobedience should,
however, be punished roughly in the same manner and to the same extent
as like conduct engaged in by anyone else. For example, if protesters
commit unlawful trespass, they should be subjected to roughly the same
penalties that other trespassers face. To impose a substantially more
severe penalty presents the threat of viewpoint discrimination, no
matter how cleverly disguised.
Had states during the 1950's and 1960's been able to impose and
uphold such severe penalties on peaceful civil disobedience, the civil
rights movement might well have been snuffed out in its infancy. A
broad range of peaceful anti-abortion activity may well be disruptive
and may interfere with the lawful rights of others. The same, it must
be noted, was true of civil rights protests: they were, and were
intended to be, disruptive, and they interfered with the then-lawful
rights of others.
It is not my point here to debate the relative moral standing of the
anti-abortion and civil rights movements. Nor do I suggest that
peaceful civil disobedience should not be punished. I would simply like
to emphasize the viewpoint discrimination inherent in selectively
imposing such severe penalties on peaceful civil disobedience by
antiabortion protesters. I would also like to emphasize that such
illegitimate penalties, far from reducing violence, effectively give
protesters little reason not to resort to violence.
It has repeatedly been contended that S. 636 is modeled on Federal
civil rights laws. I must again point out, however, that the Federal
civil rights laws that have been cited do not contain the term physical
obstruction, and have been construed to apply only to acts of violence
or threats of violence. In extending its severe penalties to peaceful
civil disobedience, S. 636 thus departs from the models on which it
purports to rely.
S. 636 elevates the right to abortion above even First Amendment
rights.
In the clash between abortion and free speech, S. 636 will provide
special protection to abortion that it will not provide to the
constitutional guarantee of free speech.
As the testimony at a Labor Committee hearing last spring amply
demonstrated, violence and abuse at abortion clinics come from both
sides. If this problem is to be dealt with, it must be dealt with
evenhandedly. Unfortunately, while S. 636 contains some token gestures
of neutrality, it is decidedly one-sided on this score.
If S. 636 becomes law, abortion clinic personnel would suddenly have
a virtual license to harass and provoke pro-life demonstrators, since
they would know that the slightest bit of retaliation would subject the
pro-life demonstrators to the severe penalties under the bill. The
clear lesson of history is that peace is not achieved by disarming only
one of the contestants. The way to achieve peace is to treat both sides
equally and to make clear that conduct that is unacceptable by one side
will be unacceptable by the other.
Consistent with these principles, it is imperative that those
exercising their lawful first amendment rights to speak out against
abortion have the same protections from violence and abuse as those
seeking abortion. Unless the right to abortion is to be elevated above
even the first amendment, the penalties under the bill should have been
extended to those who, by force or threat of force or by physical
obstruction, injure, intimidate or interfere with persons lawfully
exercising their first amendment rights at abortion-related facilities.
Regrettably, an amendment that would have provided this protection was
defeated.
I will note that the conference report on S. 636, in evident response
to some of the concerns raised about the scope of proposed new sections
248(a)(1) and (2), contains one improvement over the previous Senate-
passed version. Specifically, the second rule of construction--proposed
new section 248(d)(2)--makes clear that nothing in S. 636 shall be
construed ``to create new remedies for interference with activities
protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the first
amendment to the Constitution, occurring outside a facility.'' Under
the plain language of this rule of construction, pro-life protesters
who would otherwise be in violation of section 248(a)(1) but whose
actions interfere with the free speech activities of persons at
abortion clinics are exempt from criminal or civil liability under S.
636. Accordingly, in any trials for violation of section 248(a)(1), it
will be necessary for the plaintiff to establish that the defendant did
not interfere with activities protected by the free speech clause of
the First Amendment.
S. 636 will chill the exercise of First Amendment rights.
In practice, of course, those who would have to take account of the
prospect of the Draconian penalties under the amendment would be not
simply those who would actually engage in the activities prohibited by
it, but also those who might even possibly be alleged--rightly or
wrongly--to have engaged in those activities. Because S. 636 delegates
an astonishing amount of what is in essence prosecutorial authority to
State attorneys general and to private parties--including abortion
clinics--and because it offers them the bonanza of substantial monetary
penalties, it is a virtual certainty that innocent persons who have
done nothing more than engage in the lawful exercise of their first
amendment rights will be targeted and pursued. The chilling effect on
legitimate First Amendment speech is therefore likely to be intense.
S. 636 is viewpoint discriminatory.
S. 636 discriminates against the pro-life viewpoint. Granted, this
discrimination is cleverly disguised. But, as the Supreme Court
reemphasized last year in Church of Lukumi v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217
(1993), ``[f]acial neutrality is not determinative'' of a statute's
compliance with the First Amendment. Id., at 2227. While the Church of
Lukumi case concerned the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,
there is every reason to believe that its analysis applies equally to
the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. Among the lessons of the
Church of Lukumi case are that the First Amendment ``protects against
government hostility which is masked, as well as overt,'' id., and that
``the effect of a law in its real operation is strong evidence of its
object,'' id. at 2228.
S. 636 clearly masks a hostility to the pro-life viewpoint. While
facially neutral as between abortion facilities and pro-life
facilities, the amendment fails to provide pro-life speakers the same
needed protection from violence and abuse as those seeking and
providing abortion. It also singles out abortion-related activity for
harsh penalties that do not apply to the broad range of other causes
engaged in similar conduct. For example, the incredible record of labor
union violence at strike sites--killings, shootings, beatings,
countless threats, and millions of dollars in property damage--presents
an even more compelling case for Congressional intervention.
Let me emphasize that while I appreciate the fact that the supporters
of S. 636 did not remove my religious liberty amendment from the bill,
inclusion of that amendment does not make the bill truly general in its
treatment of unlawful conduct in connection with protest activities.
Rather, it simply singles out a second category of especially unpopular
protests and protesters. This does not cure the constitutional problem
of selectivity. It means only that two types of protest are selected
for discriminatorily harsh treatment. Moreover, only time will tell
whether the religious liberty provisions of S. 636 in fact receive the
same vigorous enforcement from State and Federal law enforcement
authorities as the abortion provisions. If they do not, that will be
yet further evidence of viewpoint discrimination in practice.
The clearly intended effect of S. 636 in its real operation will be
to disadvantage pro-life speech significantly.
Mr. President, the assault on politically incorrect pro-life speech--
the effort to bankrupt those who espouse an unpopular viewpoint--is
well under way. Earlier this week, a State jury in Houston ordered
anti-abortion protesters to pay more than one million dollars in
punitive damages to a Houston abortion clinic. Even the abortion
clinic's attorney conceded that the case involved nothing more than
garden-variety wrongful interference with business relations, yet the
jury imposed a massive penalty. In Florida, a court issued an
injunction that creates a 300-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics.
Remarkably, the Florida Supreme Court upheld this injunction. The
injunction is now under review by the U.S. Supreme Court, but can
anyone imagine a speech-free buffer zone being imposed or upheld in any
other context? In Oregon, a jury awarded $8.2 million in punitive
damages against pro-life demonstrators, even though the compensatory
damages award against these demonstrators was only one dollar.
S. 636 is yet another major assault on the free speech rights of
those who abhor abortion. It is not warranted. It is not
constitutional. It is not fair; and it is not right.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield such time as I might use, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments of the
Senate's time to explain in detail what the position of the conference
is and what we reported back in terms of the attorney's fees issue,
since this has been raised by two Members of the Senate this morning.
Mr. President, the conference report adopts the same language that
was in the bill passed by the Senate last year. This body has already
approved it once. This language makes it clear that prevailing
plaintiffs can recover their attorney's fees and costs from the
defendant. And the statement of managers that accompanies the
conference report makes clear that defendants, too, may recover
attorney's fees and costs from the plaintiffs in certain circumstances,
the same circumstances in which defendants can recover the fees and
costs in civil rights cases.
It states the following on page 10:
The conferees intend this provision to be interpreted in
the same way that the attorney's fee provision in title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been interpreted. . ..
Specifically, the conferees intend that under this provision,
as under [title VII], attorney's fees and costs may be
awarded to a defendant upon a finding that the plaintiff's
action was ``frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation
even though not brought in subjective bad faith.
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C., 434 U.S. 410, 421
(1978).''
So, if a court finds that the plaintiff brought a frivolous suit
under this law, or a suit intended to harass the defendant, it could
order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's fees and costs. This has
happened under the civil rights laws, and the courts have required that
the plaintiff pay the defendants fees and costs in numerous civil
rights cases where the court found the plaintiff's suit frivolous or
without foundation. There is a good reason to allow prevailing
plaintiffs to recover attorney's fees in the ordinary case, and the
prevailing defendants to recover them only in extraordinary cases. As
the Supreme Court said in the Christianburg Garment case, the
plaintiffs in civil rights cases are the chosen instrument of Congress
to ``vindicate a policy that Congress considered of the highest
priority.'' The Court noted that the same policy considerations are not
present with respect to a prevailing defendant.
In other words, the individuals who are bringing these cases are
actually acting as private attorneys general. The enforcement mechanism
is the private individuals that are bringing these cases, and by
bringing these cases they are protecting the rights of our fellow
citizens. Therefore, there is a special consideration that ought to be
given to their interests. And that has been recognized by the courts in
the past, and that is the basis for the way that this legislation, and
the managers' report, have constructed that particular section.
A plaintiff that brings suit to challenge a clinic blockade or the
use of force against a health provider is vindicating the important
public interest and keeping access to the clinics unrestricted. And the
conference report and statement of managers clarified it and strikes
the right balance.
We have effectively duplicated what had been done in other
legislation and followed this precedent. That is what we have done with
regard to this particular provision.
I think it is wise public policy, and I think it is important that it
remain in that particular form.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Oklahoma 10
minutes, speaking in the opposition.
Mr. KENNEDY. On the opposition time.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kansas.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S. 636, the Freedom of Access
to Clinic Entrances Act. It has a nice title. I am opposed to it
because it does not do what its supporters claim it will do. Its effect
will be a very profound chilling effect against pro-life demonstrators,
leafletters, and sidewalk counselors, and persons engaging in prayer
outside abortion clinics. However, it portrays itself as a means to
eliminate violence at abortion clinics--even though applicable State
criminal statutes are already more than adequate to deal with such
occurrences.
Everyone has heard about the tragedy in Florida. There are already
applicable State laws that apply to that incident. State law covers
murder. State law covers violence. State law covers vandalism.
What this bill does is aim the full force of the Federal criminal
system against a class of Americans who feel passionately about one of
the key moral questions of our time.
To engage even in peaceful and constitutionally protected activities
will expose pro-life Americans to a very real risk of Federal criminal
penalties and punitive civil suits. Many of these people, faced with
the loss of their liberty, their livelihoods, their homes, will decide
not to take the risk. They will forgo their first amendment rights.
Amendments to make this bill evenhanded, to protect the pro-life side
as well as the pro-abortion side, to reduce penalties for nonviolent
offenses--these have been opposed by the bill's sponsors. Why? Because
the purpose of this bill, pure and simple, is to restrict the pro-life
side of the debate and allow the abortion industry to continue its
business without any expression of public opposition.
Mr. President, this Nation has a history of tolerance for nonviolent
civil disobedience. We have always recognized the close association
between peaceful civil disobedience and political speech, which is
clearly one of the most highly protected rights within our
Constitution.
I am not suggesting that civil disobedience should be overlooked, or
that laws against trespass or obstruction should not be enforced. On
the contrary, they should be enforced, and they are enforced. People
who engage in this type of activity usually are well aware of the
consequences of their actions. We are a Government of laws and I
believe that these laws need to be enforced to maintain order and
justice in our society.
However, I am very concerned about treating some people engaged in
nonviolent civil disobedience differently than others doing exactly the
same thing, especially when the basis for treating them differently is
based on the motivation or political beliefs of those people. For
example, under this bill, a grandmother sitting on the sidewalk of an
abortion clinic, singing and praying, is subject to the same penalties
as a person brandishing a gun. If we do this, we have gone beyond
punishing criminal acts. We would be saying that one cause or political
belief is better than another cause or belief. Indeed, despite all the
pretense on the other side, the legislative history of this bill and
the motives of the outside pressure groups behind it make that all too
clear.
To inflict a harsher punishment on one group over another results in
discrimination against one particular viewpoint. All groups that engage
in peaceful sit-ins and similar activity should be treated in an
evenhanded manner, regardless of the motivation of those engaged in
this conduct. But this bill does not do that. In fact, it is made clear
on page 24 of the committee report that the identical conduct outside
an abortion facility will be punished solely on its speech content. The
example cited by the committee itself is that a blockade over
environmental issues would not be covered by this bill but a blockade
over abortion would be--even if the conduct was identical. The
committee's own example shows that the real target is thought, not
behavior. This is a constitutional infirmity with first amendment
ramifications. Protecting civil rights was never the purpose of this
bill. The purpose is to protect abortion proponents and silence
abortion opponents.
The pro-life men, women, and children who have participated in
nonviolent, pro-life sit-ins have one motivation: to prevent the
violence of abortion, the violence to the unborn children, and the
violence to the women who have abortions. They want to ensure that all
people, born and unborn, enjoy full democracy.
Those who picket, hand out leaflets, and counsel the women entering
abortion clinics have every right to do so, without having the Federal
Government stack the deck against them.
Senator Kassebaum mentioned the inequity of the remedies in courts,
the civil liabilities, the fact that they would even have to be
subjected to enormous fees. These liabilities and fees only apply to
one side, the abortion opponents. They are not equally applied to
abortion proponents.
This bill only allows injunctive, compensatory, and punitive relief
to be awarded to plaintiffs, not to defendants. Neither the criminal
penalties nor the civil remedies established by S. 636 apply to any
offenses committed against such persons by, for example, clinic
personnel or pro-clinic activists. Moreover, reimbursement of attorney
and expert witness fees is available only for the plaintiff but not for
the defendant, even if the latter prevails in court. Such an outcome is
indefensible.
Americans should be able to speak their mind on any topic without
threat of Federal penalties hanging over them. Keep in mind,
substantial State and local fines and penalties already exist. This
bill gags one class of Americans from expressing their views. And that
is just not right.
We all condemn violence--the behavior of some on both sides of this
issue has been deplorable. But the issue in this bill is not violence--
it is the elevation of one right supposedly granted by the Constitution
above all other rights.
In the 1993 Clinic Violence Survey Report by the Feminist Majority
Foundation, the vast majority of incidents reported were nonviolent. It
is clear that this bill is designed to address these matters--not the
``violence'' denounced over and over again by proponents of this bill.
Not too long ago, we debated the so-called gag rule with respect to
abortion referrals at family planning clinics. At the time, the
proabortion supporters derided this rule as an abridgement of first
amendment rights. However, that gag rule was nothing next to the effect
of this bill on free speech. This bill is a club hanging over prolife
speech and expression by ordinary citizens.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, and I do not serve on the Judiciary
Committee, and I no longer serve on the Labor Committee; but I am
trying to protect ordinary Americans' rights, protect their right of
expression, their right to be able to speak out on issues that are
important to them. This bill, in my opinion, does not do that. It does
not protect rights; it limits them. It is unfair, it is one sided, it
is discriminatory and unjust. I believe, if this bill is enacted, that
the courts may very well find all or portions of it unconstitutional.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
New Hampshire.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr.
Smith], is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in very strong opposition to the
conference report to the so-called Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act of 1994.
I am pleased that the conference committee saw fit to adopt the
Senate-passed language that recognizes the fundamental distinction
between violent and nonviolent abortion protest activities. In
recognition of that distinction, the conference adopted the provisions
of the Senate bill that provide significantly reduced penalties for
nonviolent protesters.
But, Mr. President, those penalties for nonviolent protesters remain
far too harsh. Let me offer a hypothetical example--one that I used
when the Senate debated this measure last fall--to illustrate a point.
Let us suppose that a nun is sitting peacefully with others on a
sidewalk outside an abortion clinic. Perhaps she is praying or singing
religious songs, or whatever. Let us suppose that this peaceful
activity is interfering with the ability of the clinic personnel and
patients to enter the clinic. Under S. 636, that nonviolent person,
that Catholic nun, would be in violation of the law because she is
using physical obstruction to interfere with the provision of
abortions.
Let us look at the penalties that this Catholic nun--a deeply
religious person--faces under this bill. She is subject to a fine of up
to $10,000 and a 6-month jail term for the first offense.
I might ask my colleague from Massachusetts, who is leading this: If
a Catholic nun is jailed for 6 months, will she be allowed to retain
wearing her habit, or will she have to be dressed in prison garb? Maybe
we can clarify that for the Record.
For subsequent offenses, this same nun faces fines of $25,000 per
offense and jail terms of up to 18 months per offense. And if ``bodily
injury'' results from her ``physical obstruction''--I suppose if
somebody trips over her and hurts himself--she can be sentenced up to
10 more years.
I urge my colleagues to stop and think about what we are doing here.
This is a nun engaged in peaceful sit-in, reminiscent of Gandhi and the
civil rights movement of Martin Luther King. What is the difference?
She is completely nonviolent, and is acting on the basis of her deeply
held religious views. For her, the cause of the unalienable right to
life of the very youngest of human beings is a fundamental matter of
conscience.
Suppose that some of our States in the 1950's and 1960's had enacted
laws to impose the same kind of severe penalties on the civil
disobedience of Martin Luther King. These same people would have been
on the floor of this Senate in opposition to that. Such laws surely
would have slowed the great progress toward equal rights for black
Americans for which Dr. King lived and died. Where are those people
today? Maybe they are not silent, which might be better, but they are
speaking in opposition to peaceful protest for another matter, which is
not on their social agenda.
This Senator recognizes, of course, that acts of civil disobedience
are, by definition, sometimes unlawful. But I firmly believe that acts
of politically motivated, peaceful civil disobedience should only be
punished in generally the same manner as would the same underlying
unlawful conduct when it is engaged in by anybody else.
If, for example, prolife political protesters commit an unlawful
trespass, then they should be subjected to the same kind of penalties
faced by other trespassers who have no political motivation. But to
impose a substantially more severe--this is the issue--penalty on the
politically motivated trespasser than is imposed on the ordinary
trespasser for the same misconduct is viewpoint discrimination, pure
and simple. There is no other definition. Moreover, it is viewpoint
discrimination that is fundamentally inconsistent with the first
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which these same
people opposing us on this proposal, this resolution, say they support.
Mr. President, the Senate Labor Committee's report contends that S.
636 is modeled on Federal civil rights laws. I note, however, that the
Federal civil rights laws cited by the committee report do not include
the term ``physical obstruction.'' They do not include that term that
we find in S. 636. Moreover, they have been construed to apply only to
acts of violence, or threats of violence. In extending its severe
penalties to peaceful civil disobedience, S. 636 thus is inconsistent--
in a very important way--with the models on which it purports to rely.
In addition to S. 636's unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination,
Mr. President, there is another way in which this bill violates the
first amendment. Let me explain why.
Once this bill becomes law, those prolife demonstrators who will face
the draconian penalties outlined in this bill will be forced to take
account of that great risk as they undertake their antiabortion
activities. Especially for those with families--these are family
people, who are protesting here--the risk of prison terms is indeed a
sobering prospect. I have used an example of a nun. What about a young
mother with three children, who is protesting abortion, who has to go
to jail for 6 months and has to pay a $10,000 fine? Is that America?
The resulting chilling effect on legitimate free speech that is
protected by the first amendment will be intense if this passes.
Indeed, in view of the cruel and unusual penalties of this bill, one
might accurately call it a ``freezing effect;'' maybe that would be a
better term.
Mr. President, our consideration of S. 636 this morning represents
the last chance for Congress to turn off the road down which we are
traveling with this ill-advised bill. I warn my colleagues who support
this measure that they are establishing a precedent--a dangerous
precedent--for penalizing protest activities that some day--mark my
word--may come back to haunt them. They are going to come back and they
are going to bite you, haunt you, and there is going to be another
political issue you are on the other side of and you are going to
regret this vote.
I warn them, too, that they are doing damage to the fundamental first
amendment principles to which we are all so dedicated.
In closing, I strongly urge my colleagues to please join in rejecting
this conference report. Politics should not be in the first amendment.
The right to protest is a fundamental right that has been granted for
the civil rights movement and for the labor movement. Why can it not be
granted for the antiabortion movement? It does not make sense--yet, it
does make sense, because we know what the political agenda is here, and
this is a political agenda, and we are trampling on the first amendment
of the U.S. Constitution.
Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, how much time remains on those
speaking in opposition?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Fifteen minutes and fifty seconds.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Indiana speaking in opposition.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for the
time.
Mr. President, I have on several occasions expressed my strong
opposition to violence or any hint of approval of violence on the part
of persons involved on either side of the debate over abortion.
I have outlined specific concerns about certain provisions contained
in the bill which we are dealing with this morning. Many of those
concerns have been addressed. However, the broader and overriding
concern that I and many of my colleagues have expressed is about how
this bill intrudes on valued and historically and constitutionally
protected speech.
S. 636 is no less than an insult to those of us who cherish first
amendment freedoms. It regulates and prohibits speech because of its
content. It singles out a particular viewpoint for discrimination and
in doing so goes against our Nation's heritage of respecting differing
views and instead it legitimizes only speech that is deemed politically
correct and comfortable.
Mr. President, the abortion issue has become increasingly divisive,
and I hope we can agree that the way to address problems associated
with such strongly held views is not to disarm just one side. But that,
in my opinion, is exactly what we will be doing if we pass this bill
today.
Therefore, I think the question that this body should ask is: Should
Congress be in the business of protecting people from messages that
disturb their consciences? In light of the first amendment, that answer
has to be ``no.''
Mr. President, the clinic access bill is much too sweeping in scope
and has grave potential for abuse and infringement upon
constitutionally protected activities.
I oppose this bill and urge those of my colleagues who value and
cherish the first amendment, as I do, to do likewise.
In testimony presented to the Labor Committee on S. 636, Attorney
General Reno stated:
The right of individuals in that minority [referring to
pro-lifers] to express their views must be respected. The
freedom that our society affords individuals to express even
the most unpopular opinions is the bedrock upon which our
democracy rests and makes us virtually unique. Peaceful anti-
abortion protesters fit within this tradition.
The Attorney General was right. And the effect of S. 636 will be to
chill the exercise of free speech rights by anti-abortion activists. If
its logic were broadly applied or had been applied to the civil rights
movement of the sixties, I question whether any form of peaceful
protest involving a controversial subject would have survived.
It is simply not our job to pick and choose who should be denied
tools of expression still available to others. We must have one
standard for everyone, and that leaves us with only one choice. Either
apply this legislation to unions, and civil rights groups, and peace
groups, and women's groups--or permit everyone the expression they have
traditionally enjoyed.
Mr. President, finally, let me say that I oppose this legislation
because it is unnecessary. On January 24, the Supreme Court ruled that
abortion clinics can use the RICO statute to sue persons who act in
concert to plan or engage in illegal activities directed against them.
Moreover, the Justice Department prepared a memo last September that
concluded that the Hobbs Act could be invoked in cases in which an
abortion clinic purchases any supplies or services any patients who
have crossed State lines. The Hobbs Act provides prison sentences of up
to 20 years for acts of extortion, or violence or threats of violence,
that affect interstate commerce.
In October, 1993, the Justice Department sent U.S. attorneys a
memorandum that listed the Hobbs Act, Rico, and four other Federal
statutes that would often apply to threats of violence or actual
violence, including bombing and arson, and even interstate telephone
harassment.
Finally, Mr. President, we should also be aware that in the fall the
Supreme Court will have before it a case involving a Melbourne, FL,
abortion clinic. The case concerns a local court order prohibiting
persons from even peacefully approaching a woman and inviting her to
discuss abortion, within 300 feet of an abortion clinic. The Court will
be reviewing this so-called buffer-zone injunction, which I believe
violates the first amendment rights of peaceful pro-life citizens.
I was troubled to note that the Solicitor General of the United
States intervened in defense of the Melbourne order on the grounds that
the Supreme Court's handling of that case would have implications for
the clinic access bill before us today. It is troubling, Mr. President,
because it suggests that the administration may intend to use the civil
provisions of this bill as a basis to seek similar court orders that
would further suppress peaceful protest.
Mr. President, the clinic access bill is much too sweeping in scope
and has grave potential for abuse and infringement upon
constitutionally protected activities. I oppose this bill and urge
those of my colleagues who value and cherish the first amendment, as I
do, to do likewise.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from California
10 minutes speaking as a proponent of the issue before us.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer],
will be recognized for not to exceed 10 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the Senator from
Kansas.
Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the conference report on
S. 636, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
Last year we passed this bill with strong bipartisan support, and I
trust that my colleagues will again vote to condemn the violence and
stand up here in this Chamber for the rule of law and order in our
society.
I do not use the word ``violence'' lightly as I talk about this
issue, Mr. President. The Senator from Utah says this measure hides
behind the rhetoric surrounding the word ``violence.'' And he basically
says that S. 636 is not really about violence. He says it is--and I am
paraphrasing--really about silencing people who are antichoice.
Mr. President, I want to say quite unequivocally that I disagree with
those characterizations. As a matter of fact, many of my colleagues who
disagree with my pro-choice views, support this legislation. All of us
believe in America, we believe in democracy, and we believe in free
expression. But what this bill is very clearly about is the fact that
we cannot tolerate violence.
According to the National Abortion Federation since 1977 there have
been 3,000 incidents of bombings, arson, vandalism and harassment
against reproductive health care clinics, against the health
professionals who work there and, Mr. President, against those who go
to the clinics.
I want to point out that many women who go to these clinics are using
them as their first line of health care.
Mr. President, I have met women who have been harassed at these
clinics, who were going there for physical exams, not for abortions,
and they were terrorized and had to turn around and go home. That is
wrong.
Since January of this year alone, the National Abortion Federation
reports one attempted bombing, two clinic invasions causing property
damage and the disruption of services to women, 24 acts of vandalism,
three incidents of assault, 12 death threats, 182 cases of hate mail
and harassing phone calls, and four incidents of stalking, which the
Federation defines as ``the persistent following, threatening, and
harassing of an abortion provider, staff member, family member or
patient away from the clinic.''
Mr. President, this is not rhetoric. This is fact. This is real.
I myself went to a health care clinic in San Diego. The staff was
very frightened. Acid had been sprayed through the locks of the front
door, and the staff was frightened. They were injured and they had to
leave. This is not about rhetoric. This is about fact.
We cannot forget the tragic death of Dr. David Gunn, who was brutally
shot by an antiabortion protester, or the attempted murder of Dr.
George Tiller.
I say to my friend from Utah, if you think this is rhetoric, you
ought to meet with the son of Dr. David Gunn, as I did. He lost his
father. His father was practicing medicine within the law.
And what is even worse, Mr. President, some radical opponents of
choice--and these are few--called these murderous acts ``justifiable
homicide.'' I think that those extreme views shock us all. If it had
come from the other side of the debate, it would shock us as much. We
are reacting to violence, not to words, and we are doing the right
thing in this bill.
We all support the right of people to express their views on the most
controversial of issues--and certainly this is one that touches us
deeply--but we cannot tolerate violence.
The conference report before us this morning is very carefully
crafted to protect women and health care providers in clinics from
violent attacks and blockades, whose purpose is to intentionally
interfere with a woman's right to choose. And it is evenhanded--despite
what we have heard--by applying the same standard to violence which may
be directed at facilities providing alternatives to abortion.
Let me repeat that. This bill is evenhanded. The message will go out
today to all Americans that Senators on both sides of this issue are
saying to all sides of this issue, ``No violence. We protect your right
to express yourselves peacefully, but not violently.''
Mr. President, we must pass this conference report today and stop the
escalating violence at health care clinics. The health of American
women hangs in the balance.
Our doctor's offices have been transformed from safe havens to war
zones. One survey found that 90 percent of our abortion providers have
been victims of antiabortion harassment or violence.
When doctors and nurses at health clinics receive threatening phone
calls or hate mail, when they or their family members are stalked or
picketed at home, or when doctor's faces appear on wanted posters they
become frightened and intimidated. Fear of attack has forced some
doctors to take extraordinary safety measures, such as hiring security
guards, purchasing bullet proof vests or installing bullet proof glass.
Others decide to leave the clinic or the area. Some even give up the
practice of medicine.
The fact is that the vast majority of the medical facilities which
have been targeted provide a range of vital health care services to
women, including contraceptive services and counseling, prenatal care,
pap smears, and other preventive health services.
When health care clinics are burned down, or bombed or sprayed with
butyric acid--a foul smelling chemical which can cause burns and
nausea--women are prevented from getting the health care services that
they need. It can take days for clinics to re-open after an acid
attack. In some cases, where the clinic has sustained extensive damage
or been completely destroyed, the clinic is closed.
If doctors are driven away from providing the full range of
reproductive health services to women, including abortion, and health
care clinics are closed, a woman's constitutional right to have an
abortion if she so chooses will become meaningless and we will go back
to the days of unsafe, back alley abortions. That would be the greatest
danger of all to women's health.
Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the Senate Labor and Human
Resources Committee for his commitment and leadership on this bill. It
protects American women and their doctors from violence and harassment,
and in no way interferes with or penalizes the legitimate first
amendment rights of anti-abortion demonstrators. I hope my colleagues
will once again set aside whatever strong personal views they have on
the issue of abortion, and vote to end the violence and the fear.
I yield back my time to the Senator from Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield now 3 minutes to the Senator
from Vermont, speaking as a proponent.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] is
recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the free access to
clinic entrances conference report, which I had the privilege of
signing. When we passed this bill, we had a very strong bipartisan vote
against the escalating violence which has come to surround some of our
health clinics. I understand there are some differences. I have
reviewed those differences, and I still am in favor of the conference
report and the bill as it appears before us. I hope that we will
reaffirm that commitment against violence today.
Like the majority of Americans, I am pro-choice. Thus, I oppose
unreasonable restrictions on the exercise of reproductive choice.
Clinics in my home State of Vermont have been invaded, blockaded and
shut down for hours at a time by protesters. In one instance, patients
who had been able, with the attending physician, to enter the health
clinic through a window, were blocked in and unable to exit until
nightfall. In the words of one of my constituents, these incidents are
``terrifying, threatening, very scary.''
I support the provisions of this bill to try to restore safety to our
doctors and their patients. Doctors should not live in fear, with
bulletproof vests and unlisted telephone numbers. Patients should be
able to visit the health clinic of their choice without fear of
threats, violence or intimidation.
It is my hope that the free access to clinic entrances bill will help
stem the tide of violence which has been sweeping across the Nation.
One fatal shooting is far too many. Let us not allow the violence and
intimidation to escalate to that point again.
Please join me in voting for the conference report of the free access
to clinic entrances bill.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and yield the
floor.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
California to speak as a proponent of the conference report.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California [Mrs.
Feinstein], is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President, and I thank
Senator Kassebaum.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the freedom of access to clinic
entrances bill and this particular conference report, as submitted by
Senator Kennedy and the Labor and Human Resources Committee.
I strongly hope that every Member of this body would vote for this
bill. It is a bill whose time has come and whose need has clearly been
substantiated.
In the last few years, and especially this past year, there has been
a disturbing trend of increasing violence at family planning clinics
across the country--threatening letters sent to doctors, patients
blocked from safe access to clinics, clinics invaded or sprayed with
toxic chemicals, clinics even burned to the ground and doctors shot and
killed. This cannot continue.
These are no longer peaceful protests. These are examples of
vigilante extremism that mirror the spread of hate crimes and random
violence in our society.
This past year alone, there have been more than 1,400 acts of
violence against abortion providers and patients. Cases of arson and
vandalism directed at clinics have more than tripled over the last 3
years.
Another report found that in 1993 more than 53 percent of the clinics
surveyed have experienced some form of violence--death threats,
stalking, arson, bomb threats or blockades.
The economic impact of clinic violence is enormous. Just through
September of last year, there was over $3.7 million worth of damage to
clinics across this country.
What this does to women who have an absolute and legal right to
family planning services cannot be underestimated.
I personally have gone to these clinics. I have seen what happens.
Having worked in the public sector for over 20 years now, I know the
difference between a peaceful picket and one that is not. These are not
peaceful pickets.
These are efforts that are aimed at making a woman feel so terrible
by the time she runs the gauntlet that she is beside herself with
anxiety over a decision that is difficult enough to make without having
swirling violence around her as she walks into a clinic.
I must point out to you, Mr. President, as you well know, that this
conference report is actually a more conservative version than the
House bill. The conference report largely resembles the more carefully
drawn Senate bill that originally passed this body. The report
distinguishes between nonviolent physical obstruction and violent acts.
Again, I urge my colleagues to adopt the conference report to the
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act in order to protect those who
work at clinics throughout the country and those who choose to use
these constitutionally protected services.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator request that the time be
charged against both sides? The Senator has only 8 minutes and 17
seconds on her side.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Eight minutes, Mr. President? There are some other
speakers who asked to speak who are not on the floor yet.
I suggest, for the moment, the absence of a quorum, the time of which
would be allocated against both sides.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Against both sides. Without objection, it
is so ordered.
The absence of a quorum has been suggested and the clerk will call
the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are very appreciative of our
colleagues for addressing this issue over the period of the last hour
and a half. We had addressed most of the concerns that had been
expressed, both during the debate on the legislation and also on the
conference report. We feel we have addressed those issues and have made
the case in terms of the support for this legislation.
I will yield myself the remaining time.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for the
remaining time.
Mr. KENNEDY. I will include at this point in the Record the
statistics from November 17--which was the date of Senate passage --up
to May 4. The National Abortion Federation has reported for that
period: some 19 blockades, 5 invasions into the various clinics, 24
incidents of vandalism, 5 bomb threats, 12 death threats, 4 assault and
batteries, an attempted arson and bombing, and also a case of arson. I
will also include the newspaper article that as recently as the last 3
or 4 days there have been instances again where there has been an
invasion of a clinic, this time in Bloomington, IN. The problem
remains. The legislation is necessary. I am grateful to all those who
have been a part of this effort to date and I look forward to a strong
bipartisan vote on this issue.
I ask unanimous consent to have the material printed at this point in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Bloomington, IN Herald-Times, May 11, 1994]
Protestors Storm Clinic--Activist Chain Selves Together: 11 Arrested
(By Steven Higgs)
Eleven anti-abortion protesters were arrested Monday
morning after they stormed the Bloomington Planned Parenthood
clinic and shackled themselves together with bicycle locks
and homemade ankle locks.
All remain in the Monroe County Jail this morning after
identifying themselves only as John Doe or Baby Doe. The
eight men and three women face preliminary misdemeanor
charges of criminal trespass and resisting law enforcement.
A jail spokeswoman said the protesters cannot be released
until they are identified. They could be prosecuted as John
Does.
Included in the group was Joshua Miller and Michael Suhy,
both from the Madison, Wis., group Collegians Activated to
Liberate Life, and Donovan Harshbarger from the Bloomington
Alliance for Life.
Another woman, Tonya Agnew, 23, Greenville, Mich., was
arrested for shoving a Planned Parenthood volunteer in the
clinic's parking lot while trying to give anti-abortion
literature to women being escorted into the clinic for
abortions. She faces preliminary charges of criminal
recklessness and resisting law enforcement.
Agnew will be transported to Lake County, where she is on
probation for an anti-abortion protest last year.
The protesters brought clinic activities to a halt for a
little more than 2\1/2\ hours while police, firefighters and
locksmiths cut them free.
And spokeswoman Bob Rust from Greensburg claimed the
protest was a success because at least one woman scheduled to
have abortions Monday did not.
``That's one baby that was saved,'' he said.
Planned Parenthood executive director Sandy Andersen
acknowledged that not all of the women who were scheduled
showed up. But she said the occupation served to only delay
abortion services for a brief time.
``As long as one person remains who wants an abortion,
we're staying open,'' she said. ``It's business as usual for
us.''
The occupation began at about 8:20 a.m. when a young woman
carrying a specimen bottle entered the clinic, said Kate
Braun, one of two Planned Parenthood workers in the clinic at
the time.
When Braun asked if the woman had an appointment, she
demanded to know where the restroom was. The woman then ran
down the hallway toward the back door.
Braun shouted at fellow worker Andrea Byers to chase the
woman.
Byers followed her down the short hallway, where the woman
threw open the back door. Ten other protesters then poured
out of a white van and rushed the clinic.
``All these people bombarded the clinic,'' Braun said.
``It was the scariest moment of my life,'' said Byers, a
24-year-old Indiana University nursing student. ``I thought
they were going to kill me.''
Monday was Byers' first day back on the job at Planned
Parenthood. She had taken the last semester off to devote to
her studies.
Byers then blocked a door to keep the protestors from
making their way into the rest of the clinic. But the
protesters weren't interested in getting any deeper into the
clinic. They were chaining themselves together in the short
hallway.
They secured each other together around the necks with
steel bicycle locks. They shackled their ankles together with
home-manufactured ankle locks.
Then they prayed and sang hymns.
At 9:05, Bloomington police gave the protesters one minute
to leave or face arrest. When asked if any would leave on
their own accord, all remained passive. One slowly shook his
head no.
At 9:07 they were placed under arrest and the long process
of freeing the protesters began.
Police and Bloomington firefighters chipped and pounded and
scraped on the locks, to no avail. Locksmiths were called in.
All the while, the protesters prayed and sang quietly.
Planned Parenthood workers exchanged disbelieving glances
when the protesters recited the Lord's Prayer and came to the
words, ``forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who
trespass against us.''
When Andersen asked rhetorically how much the protest was
costing the city, a protester wearing an Indianapolis Colts
cap and a T-shirt that read ``Lord's Gym'' and pictured Jesus
carrying the cross responded, ``How many lives is it costing
to run this clinic, ma'am?''
Outside the clinic, the crowds of both anti-abortion
protesters and Planned Parenthood volunteer escorts grew.
About 50 protesters, carrying signs and singing hymns,
lined the clinic's perimeter. At one point, about 25 gathered
around a police car parked in front of the Planned Parenthood
administrative office building and sang to those inside.
The patients who had come for abortions Monday morning had
been escorted into the office building.
Using heavy-duty drills and hammers and punches, the
locksmiths broke the first ankle lock at 10:15.
Ten minutes later, the first protester, her body limp, was
carried by four police officers out of the clinic on a blaze
orange plastic carrier. As she was loaded into a waiting
police van, protesters shouted, ``Love you guys,'' and other
words of support.
Local singer/protester Candy Pinkston-Gardner led the
protesters in gospel songs and hymns.
Inside, occasional shouts of pain from protesters were
heard while police and locksmiths continued cutting through
the shackles.
Finally, at 11 a.m., the last protester was carried out.
Protesters cheered their own. Planned Parenthood supporters
cheered the police.
Locksmith Keith Brough said the shackles posed problems.
``Whoever built them knew what they were doing,'' he said.
``All of them were different.''
Andersen had said earlier that the protest would only slow
things down. Both the doctor and Monday's patients were
waiting until the protest ended.
``We'll still do things,'' she said. ``We'll just be doing
it a little bit later.''
Once the protesters were out of the clinic, Andersen said
it would be business as usual.
But the drama wasn't over. The patients had to be escorted
across the parking lot to the clinic. And the protesters were
determined to make their views known to them.
Both sides literally formed huddles on opposite sides of
the Planned Parenthood parking lot to develop strategies.
A group of escorts gathered in front of the office door and
then walked toward the clinic. Protesters carrying signs and
photos and literature charged toward them, shouting at the
women inside the phalanx of escorts.
But another smaller group, with the actual patients wrapped
tightly in white towels around their heads and upper bodies
to muffle the noise, moved across the back of the lot to the
clinic.
A handful of protesters rushed that group, with Agnew
allegedly shoving escort Wendy Bethel.
``She shoved me very forcefully trying to get by,'' Bethel
said. ``She fell and got up and shoved me again.''
Valerie McCarty, from the IU Students for Life, and Rust
said the occupation and protest were not organized by any
single group.
``Some pro-life Christians decided to take risks with their
bodies,'' Rust said. ``They were all acting as individuals.''
Protester Isidora de Place said protesters had come from as
far as Missouri to participate in Monday's action.
``We were told that today could be a life-saving day,'' she
said.
Rust wouldn't say anything definitive when asked if
Monday's activities were the beginning or the end of anti-
abortion activities in Bloomington.
``We'll just see what God has in mind,'' he said.
``Personally, I'd like to see more rescues.''
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference
report to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act [FACE]. As an
original cosponsor of this legislation, I have long supported efforts
to stop violence and harassment at our Nation's reproductive health
clinics.
Mr. President, the Supreme Court has upheld a woman's constitutional
right to choose in numerous court cases beginning with Roe versus Wade.
Despite these legal assurances, the right to choose has been greatly
eroded recently.
States have enacted waiting periods, so-called informed consent laws,
and other impediments to reproductive health services that do not apply
to people seeking other health services. On top of all of this, clinic
violence, harassment and obstruction have increased dramatically. This
was dramatized by the cold-blooded murder of Dr. David Gunn earlier
last year outside of a Pensacola, FL health clinic. His murder took
place after years of harassment and posting of wanted signs with his
picture on it. But this was no isolated incident.
Since 1977, opponents of choice are responsible for more than 1,000
acts of violence against abortion providers, including bombings, arson,
death threats, kidnappings, assaults, shootings, and clinic invasions.
Also during this time period, antichoice protesters have committed
over 5,000 acts of disruption, including clinic blockades, bomb
threats, hate mail, harassing phone calls, and demonstrations.
Mr. President, this legislation will make it a Federal crime to
prohibit someone from obtaining abortion services or assisting someone
who desires these services by force, threat of force or physical
obstruction.
This legislation does not make it illegal for people to protest
civilly. It does not restrict freedom of speech. It simply prevents
violence, obstruction, and harassment of women and health care
professionals.
Mr. President, the women of this country must have a real right to
choose, not an abstract one. If we allow violence, vandalism and
harassment to continue at reproductive health clinics, women will not
be able to exercise this constitutional right.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and look forward to
President Clinton signing this legislation into law.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
conference report for S. 636, the Free Access to Clinic Entrances Act
of 1993 [FACE]. I was an original cosponsor of this legislation and am
gratified that final passage is imminent.
The bill will protect women, health care providers and clinics from
violent attacks and blockades intended to interfere with a woman's
right to seek clinic assistance. It has been carefully crafted so as
not to interfere with the first amendment protection of freedom of
speech. The FACE bill addresses attempted murder and murder, bombings,
arson, vandalism and other violent acts. Nobody can convince me that
any of these acts is a justifiable form of freedom of expression. There
is no justification for physically injuring people or their property
over a differing view on a controversial issue.
We are facing so many challenges in our society, enforcing our laws
and punishing criminals for illegal behavior is one of the most
important. It amazes me that any of my colleagues could be opposed to
this bill. The issue is about enforcing laws against violent
perpetrators. The fact that this bill is aimed towards antiabortion
activists is important. Many of these people have gotten away with
their violent actions because local law enforcement shares their views
and is unwilling to protect women who are exercising their
constitutionally protected right to choose. This is wrong and should
not be tolerated. That is why this bill is necessary. We must establish
a nationwide standard because this is an interstate problem. Groups
plan out attacks in one State and then cross the border into the next
State to carry out the attacks, leaving local law enforcement unable to
pursue the suspects. We must approach this issue as it should be, a
deterrent to violent behavior.
It is time to stop the violence against women, their health care
providers and clinic workers. The issue is one of freedom, freedom to
go to your doctor, freedom to choose to terminate your pregnancy,
freedom to make a private decision and not be physically prevented from
exercising your right to choose. I applaud the House for swift and
bipartisan passage of this bill, and I look forward to Senate passage
and the President's signature on this very important piece of
legislation.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, 3 years ago, the city of Wichita was the
site of one of the largest abortion clinic protests ever. The protest
tore the city apart, disrupting lives, interfering with businesses, and
transforming much of Wichita into a media circus of protestors, police,
and camera crews.
Last year, I voted for the Senate version of the clinic access bill
because of the Wichita experience. While I have consistently voted in
support of the pro-life position, I also share the concerns of most
Americans who do not condone violence either, regardless of the
activities or persons at which the violence is directed.
At the same time, it is critical to distinguish between violent
activities, which deserve serious punishment, and those activities that
are truly nonviolent. Our country has a rich tradition of peaceful
civil disobedience, and this is one tradition that should be preserved.
During last year's floor debate, I was able to prevail upon my
colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, to reduce by 90 percent
the maximum penalties for nonviolent protests.
I have subsequently tried to persuade my colleagues to reduce these
penalties even further, since the bill, as passed by the Senate,
continues to treat peaceful civil disobedience as a felony subject to
steep civil and criminal fines.
Earlier this year, I wrote to Senator Kennedy, suggesting that
the conference report reduce the maximum fine for acts constituting
nonviolent physical obstruction from $10,000 to $1,000, and the maximum
term of imprisonment from 6 months to 2 months. I also suggested that,
for each subsequent violation, the maximum fine should be reduced from
$25,000 to $2,500, and the maximum term of imprisonment reduced form 18
months to 6 months.
Despite my efforts, these recommendations were unfortunately
rejected. Since there has been no improvement--since the penalties for
nonviolent protests remain identical to the stiff penalties included in
the bill passed by the Senate last year--I intend to vote against the
conference report.
The bottom line is the conference report continues to treat
nonviolent protest in an excessively punitive manner.
No doubt about it, violence serves only to promote more violence,
more mutual distrust, more anger, and less understanding. As America
heads into the 21st century, our only hope for ultimately resolving the
abortion issue lies in the power of persuation--peaceful, nonviolent
persuasion. This debate, no matter what its outcome, should serve to
remind us of this truth.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my correspondence with
Senator Kennedy be inserted in the Record immediately after my remarks.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, April 26, 1994.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Ted: We are writing to express our concerns about S.
636, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
We continue to believe that S. 636, as currently drafted,
imposes unduly severe penalties on activities involving
peaceful civil disobedience. Although we have no quarrel with
the penalties proposed in the bill for those who engage in
activities involving force or the threat of force, it is
inappropriate to treat peaceful civil disobedience as a
felony subject to the prison terms and steep civil and
criminal penalties proposed in the bill.
To alleviate these concerns, we would suggest that the
conference report on S. 636 reduce the maximum fine for acts
constituting ``non-violent physical obstruction'' from
$10,000 to $1,000, and the maximum term of imprisonment from
6 months to 2 months. For each subsequent violation, the
maximum fine should be reduced from $25,000 to $2,500, and
the maximum term of imprisonment reduced from 18 months to 6
months.
With respect to non-violent activities, we would also
suggest that the civil penalties available to the Attorney
General of the United States and the State Attorneys General
be reduced from $10,000 to $5,000 for first-time violations
and from $15,000 to $10,000 for each subsequent violation.
It is our hope that you will be able to make these changes
in conference, so that we and others who share the same
concerns can support the conference report.
Ted, thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Bob Dole,
Mitch McConnell.
____
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, November 17, 1993.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ted: We are writing to express two sets of concerns
with respect to S. 636, the Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act, which the Senate passed yesterday.
First, while we appreciate your recognition of the
principle that acts of peaceful civil disobedience should be
punished differently from acts of violence, we are very
concerned that the penalties under S. 636 for peaceful civil
disobedience remain grossly disproportionate to the acts they
are designed to punish. Your willingness to reduce the
criminal penalties to $10,000 for first-time violations and
$25,000 for subsequent violations is a step in the right
direction. Nevertheless, we continue to believe that it is
inappropriate for the federal government to treat peaceful
civil disobedience as a felony subject to the prison terms
and steep civil and criminal penalties proposed in the bill.
Second, we strongly urge that any conference report on S.
636 contain the religious liberty amendment that was offered
by Senator Hatch and passed by voice vote. We understand that
a roll call vote was dispensed with based upon your
representation that you would insist that the conference
report contain this religious liberty provision. We would
like to restate our interest in ensuring that the provision
remains part of any conference report.
Final passage of the conference report would be expedited
if these two matters are adequately addressed. If these
matters are not adequately addressed, it would be difficult
for us and others to support final passage of the conference
report.
Ted, thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Bob Dole,
William V. Roth, Jr.,
Christopher S. Bond,
Mitch McConnell.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there being no one here to address this
issue, and the time having come that has been allocated to us, I yield
the remainder of the time and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The opposition has 5 minutes and 50
seconds remaining. The opposition would have to yield back the time
also.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask consent all the remaining time, both of the
proponents and opposition, be yielded back.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The absence of a quorum has been suggested. The clerk will call the
roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EXON. On or about the noon hour today we are going to be voting
on the Bosnia resolution. I would like to say a few words on what I
think is the proper course of action in this regard. I had made a
previous statement on the floor on this a week or so ago. I will try
not to be repetitious.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Would the Senator allow the Chair? Does
the Senator wish to speak as in morning business?
Mr. EXON. I ask unanimous consent I might proceed as in morning
business for not to exceed 5 minutes.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator is recognized for not to exceed 5 minutes.
____________________