[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.

                          ____________________