[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 171 (Wednesday, November 1, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11593-H11602]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1833, PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN 
                              ACT OF 1995

  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 251 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 251

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1833) to amend title 18, United States Code, 
     to ban partial-birth abortions. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered as read for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill shall be considered as adopted in the House and in 
     the Committee of the Whole. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yield is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 251 is a closed rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995. 
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee and 
provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, of all of the issues with which our society, and this 
Congress, grapples, perhaps none is so contentious and difficult as the 
issue of abortion. It is an issue on which thoughtful people of good 
will, who have carefully pondered and considered its various aspects, 
passionately disagree, each side believing it is protecting the most 
fundamental of rights.
  And yet, as divisive as this issue is, a majority of the citizens of 
our Nation have sought and found some common ground. One such area of 
general agreement relates to use of taxpayer funds. Most Americans do 
not think the money they send to their Government should be used to pay 
for elective abortions.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the bill that we will debate today is 
another area where we can find that common ground. Because through this 
bill we will bring to an end a practice that is so gruesome and 
horrific and so repugnant to the valuing of human life that the 
American Medical Association's Council on Legislation voted unanimously 
to recommend that the AMA Board of Trustees endorse this bill, with one 
member voting that the council members agreed that this procedure is 
basically repulsive.
  Mr. Speaker, let me stress that this debate is not about the myriad 
of other issues relating to abortion. This bill is very narrowly drawn 
to address only this particular procedure, and that is why we have 
brought this bill to the floor under a closed rule. While the Rules 
Committee has successfully worked to drastically reduce the number of 
closed rules in this Congress as compared to past years, it is 
appropriate to limit the debate on this very narrow proposal, and not 
attempt to use this as a vehicle to debate the enormous range of 
contentious issues relating to abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, we have some anomalies in our laws across the country 
regarding the rights and interests of children. We recognize that 
children of parents who die before the child's birth should 
nevertheless be recognized as heirs of that parents's estate--
establishing a property right for unborn children. We recognize causes 
of action for death or injury to unborn children--recognition of their 
right to be free from injury or pain. The moment a child is born any 
intentional injury to that child can be prosecuted as child abuse. And 
yet, the procedure we debate today indisputably causes pain and ends 
the life of partially born children--children whose bodies have been 
delivered and are outside the mother's womb but whose heads remain 
inside while the doctor ends the child's life and then finished the 
birth--except there is no birth now because the child is now dead. And 
currently, our laws do not protect these children.
  Mr. Speaker, surely this is an area where we can find that elusive 
common ground--and prohibit a procedure used in lateterm abortions that 
measures the difference between life and death in inches. A procedure 
that one practitioner admits he has used for purely elective abortions 
80 percent of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit that this bill is a place for us to set aside 
our other differences and unite in prohibiting a violent, morally 
repugnant practice. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] for 
yielding the customary 30 minutes of debate time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, we oppose in the strongest possible terms both this 
closed rule and the legislation it makes in order. This is, we believe, 
a dangerous piece of legislation that makes it a crime to perform a 
medically established, safe method of completing late abortions. We 
oppose the bill not only because it is the first time the Federal 
Government would ban a form of abortion, but also because it is part of 
an effort to make it virtually impossible for any abortion to be 
performed late in a pregnancy, no matter how endangered the mother's 
life on health might be.
  On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, if I may say so as the author of 
California's Therapeutic Abortion Act, which our then Governor Mr. 
Reagan signed into law back in 1967, which is one of the first laws in 
the Nation passed to protect the lives of women, I cannot express how 
strongly and strenuously I oppose the bill, and how profoundly sad and 
disturbing I find it that we seem to be poised to turn back the clock 
30 years by insisting again, as we used to, that the State, and not the 
individual woman and her family, make this most personal and horrific 
decision for every family facing this tragic choice.

[[Page H 11594]]

  Mr. Speaker, we believe it is an unconstitutional infringement on the 
right to an abortion. It directly challenges the Roe versus Wade 
decision to protect a woman's right to choose; it contravenes the 
central holding of Roe that the Government may not ban an abortion 
where it is necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the 
mother. Under the bill, preserving the health of the mother is no 
defense at all, so the bill would sacrifice a woman's health to serve 
an extreme political agenda.
  The bill is so vague that it is bound to produce a chilling effect on 
a broad range of abortion procedures. Physicians will think long and 
hard about whether they can endure practicing medicine under the 
constant threat of imprisonment, of civil lawsuits, and with the 
knowledge Congress has forbidden them from exercising their best 
professional judgments on behalf of their patients.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Congress has absolutely no business passing 
judgments on lifesaving medical procedures. This legislation is 
reprehensible in its arrogance and it is an unprecedented intrusion by 
the Congress into the practice of medicine and into the private lives 
of our Nation's families at a time when they are facing the most 
terrible decisions they will ever, ever have to make.
  It is bad enough Members are being asked to vote on this 
irresponsible piece of legislation. To make matters worse, we are being 
required to consider this very controversial bill under a completely 
closed rule. There is simply no excuse. There is simply no good reason 
for denying Members any opportunity at all to try to cure the obvious 
defects in this legislation.
  At the very least, if we could not consider the bill under an open 
rule, the majority should have allowed votes on three very critical 
amendments. First, the Farr-Lofgren amendment, which would have given 
us the opportunity to add language to the bill to create a life and 
health exception to the abortion ban. This is a fundamental concern, 
obviously, to women and their families.
  Without this exception, Mr. Speaker, the bill will force women and 
their physicians to resort to procedures that may be more dangerous to 
the woman's health than the method banned. This amendment would permit 
Members to cast a vote that respects the paramount importance of 
women's health and future fertility.
  We also believe strongly the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], should have been made in order. Her 
amendment would have created a life exception to the abortion ban. We 
heard yesterday in the Committee on Rules extremely compelling 
testimony about how critical this exception is.
  The bill before us contains a very narrow affirmative defense for 
cases where the banned procedure was the only one that would have saved 
the woman's life. This is not a life exception at all. It is only an 
affirmative defense, not an exception to the ban. It shifts the burden 
of proof to the doctor when he is already under indictment, already in 
court, already forced to have undergone lengthy and expensive legal 
proceedings. The Johnson amendment is extremely important, and Members 
should have been allowed the opportunity to debate it and to vote on 
it.

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the amendment by the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt], which would have returned the burden of proof in 
these cases to the Government, where it belongs, should have been 
allowed.
  As the gentleman from North Carolina testified, the burden of proof 
in criminal cases is always on the Government. This bill upsets that 
time-honored legal standard by requiring the defendant, in this case 
the physician, to prove that the procedure was necessary to save a 
woman's life, and that no other procedure was available. This basic and 
fundamental standard of law should not be reversed in this bill. This 
is a great disservice not only to the medical people involved, but to 
our entire legal system. Mr. Speaker, we frankly find it outrageous 
that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], was not allowed to 
offer this very basic, very necessary amendment, which we believe the 
Members in their wisdom would have seen fit to adopt.
   Mr. Speaker, this legislation before us is an uncalled for expansion 
of the Federal Government's power. It is one more step in the move to 
end a woman's access to safe and legal abortions. It is so broadly 
written it will surely prevent physicians from performing those 
lifesaving late-term abortions that are being performed because of 
deformities that prevent the fetus' survival or because a woman's life, 
health, or future reproductive capacity may be severely threatened.
  We strongly oppose the rule before us and the bill it makes in order. 
We urge defeat of the rule.
   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, there are five good reasons for granting a closed rule 
for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Here they are:
  The act pictured here in these photographs, is, in the words of the 
American Medical Association's Legislative Council, basically 
repulsive.
  The Rules Committee crafted this rule in a bipartisan fashion. Some 
Members voiced support for the addition of a life-of-the-mother 
amendment to be allowed to this legislation. The reason that this 
closed rule makes no provision for that is simple: The bill already 
permits a physician to perform a partial-birth abortion if he 
reasonably believes that it is necessary to save the life of the 
mother, and that no other procedure would suffice for that purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, even the most ardent opponents of partial-birth abortion 
would not wish to allow women's lives to be endangered.
  But make no mistake: Partial-birth abortions are being performed for 
many other elective reasons. According to the National Abortion 
Federation a national coalition of abortionists, late-term abortions 
are performed for fetal indications, lack of money or health insurance, 
social crises, or lack of knowledge about human reproduction. One 
abortionist even stated that he performed nine partial-birth abortions 
because the unborn baby had a cleft lip.
  Mr. Speaker, this repulsive procedure is the act of a culture of 
death. Even at the turn of the century, American suffragettes 
recognized abortion as ``child murder'', in the words of Susan B. 
Anthony. Along with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, another one of the 
organizers of the women's right-to-vote movement, whose 75th 
anniversary we celebrate this year, Susan B. Anthony also wrote, ``When 
a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by 
education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged.''
  Let us not continue to offer partial-birth abortions to women as a 
solution to real-life problems. In the spirit of our American 
suffragettes, support the rule and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 
of 1995. Your conscience will make you glad you did.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, indeed this is a very, very tragic day and decision, and 
this rule is even more tragic, because it closes the door on the life 
or health of the mother. This is a closed rule, and it says that this 
procedure cannot be used for the life or health of the mother. This is 
in violation of Roe versus Wade, which says States can put all sorts of 
restrictions on late term abortions, and I certainly support that, but 
they cannot restrict them when it comes to life or health of the 
mother.

                              {time}  1045

  So if this rule goes forward and we are not allowed to bring the life 
of the mother and all of the, I think, justice that that brings with it 
to this floor, I am appalled that we have shut down that plea.
  Mr. Speaker, people will say that the life of the mother is protected 
in this bill. That is absolutely wrong. All this bill allows is, after 
a doctor is arrested in a criminal offense, the doctor then has the 
burden of proof to prove that 

[[Page H 11595]]

there was no other way that they could do this, and that is a very 
difficult burden of proof. And who in the world is going to submit to 
being arrested first. So the life of the mother is given very secondary 
status here.
  But let me read from the California Medical Society's 38,000 doctors. 
They say, in their letter to this body,

       An abortion performed in the late trimester of pregnancy is 
     extremely difficult for everyone involved, and we wish to 
     clarify we are not advocating the performance of elective 
     abortions in this late stage of pregnancy. However, when 
     serious fetal anomalies are discovered late in a pregnancy or 
     a pregnant woman develops life-threatening medical conditions 
     inconsistent with the continuation of that pregnancy, 
     abortion, however heart wrenching, may be medically 
     necessary. And in such cases the procedure described in this 
     bill would be outlawed, and it would prohibit all sorts of 
     medical benefits and the chance to give safer alternatives to 
     her by maintaining uterine integrity, reducing blood loss, 
     and other potential complications,

  including death.
  Mr. Speaker, how can we turn our back on that? Never, never have we 
outlawed a medical procedure or criminalized it, and here we are doing 
it, even if it is for the life of the mother. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
  The information referred to above is included for the Record as 
follows:

                               California Medical Association,

                              San Francisco, CA, October 24, 1995.
       Re. H.R. 1833.
     Hon. Sam Farr,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Farr: The California Medical 
     Association is writing to express its strong opposition to 
     the above-referenced bill, which would ban ``partial-birth 
     abortions.'' We believe that this bill would create an 
     unwarranted intrusion into the physician-patient relationship 
     by preventing physicians from providing necessary medical 
     care to their patients. Furthermore, it would impose an 
     horrendous burden on families who are already facing a 
     crushing personal situation--the loss of a wanted pregnancy 
     to which the woman and her spouse are deeply committed.
       An abortion performed in the late second trimester or in 
     the third trimester of pregnancy is extremely difficult for 
     everyone involved, and CMA wishes to clarify that it is not 
     advocating the performance of elective abortions in the last 
     stage of pregnancy. However, when serious fetal anomalies are 
     discovered late in a pregnancy, or the pregnant woman 
     develops a life-threatening medical condition that is 
     inconsistent with continuation of the pregnancy, abortion--
     however heart-wrenching--may be medically necessary. In such 
     cases, the intact dilation and extraction procedure (IDE)--
     which would be outlawed by this bill--may provide substantial 
     medical benefits. It is safer in several aspects than the 
     alternatives, maintaining uterine integrity, and reducing 
     blood loss and other potential complications. It also permits 
     the parents to hold and mourn the fetus as a lost child, 
     which may assist them in reaching closure on a tragic 
     situation. In addition, the procedure permits the performance 
     of a careful autopsy and therefore a more accurate diagnosis 
     of the fetal anomaly. As a result, these families, who are 
     extremely desirous of having more children, can receive 
     appropriate genetic counseling and more focused prenatal care 
     and testing in future pregnancies. Thus, there are numerous 
     reasons why the IDE procedure may be medically appropriate in 
     a particular case, and there is virtually no scientific 
     evidence supporting a ban on its use.
       CMA recognizes that this type of abortion procedure 
     performed late in a pregnancy is a very serious matter. 
     However, political concerns and religious beliefs should not 
     be permitted to take precedence over the health and safety of 
     patients. CMA opposes any legislation, state or federal, that 
     denies a pregnant woman and her physician the ability to make 
     medically appropriate decisions about the course of her 
     medical care. The determination of the medical need for, and 
     effectiveness of, particular medical procedures must be left 
     to the medical profession, to be reflected in the standard of 
     care. It would set a very undesirable precedent if Congress 
     were by legislation fiat to decide such matters. The 
     legislative process is ill-suited to evaluate complex medical 
     procedures whose importance may vary with a particular 
     patient's case and with the state of scientific knowledge.
       CMA urges you to defeat this bill. The patients who would 
     seek the IDE procedure are already in great personal turmoil. 
     Their physical and emotional trauma should not be compounded 
     by an oppressive law that is devoid of scientific 
     justification.
           Sincerely,
                                        Eugene S. Ogrod, II, M.D.,
                                                        President.

  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I think the record should be 
very clear that in the past, prior to Roe versus Wade, abortion was 
illegal and unborn children were protected in most of the States and it 
was the doctors that were prosecuted, the abortionists, the quacks, who 
were doing those abortions. So the previous speaker's statement simply 
is not true.
  Mr. Speaker, the vote on this rule boils down to one simple question. 
Will our discussion and our votes today be about the procedure known as 
partial birth abortion or will the organized pro-abortion forces 
succeed again in diverting the debate and muddying the waters?
  The professional abortionists and the paid representatives of the 
abortion industry desperately want to avoid a congressional debate on 
what actually happens in this procedure or any other method of abortion 
for that matter. They already know better than anyone else the gruesome 
details about every method of abortion. The abortion lobby also knows 
that most Members of Congress who generally vote on their side of the 
issue, like most Americans, are really not pro abortion in their heart 
of hearts.
  Mr. Speaker, they know that today, if this rule is adopted, the 
abortion debate will shift from the abstract to the real. They know 
that the 23 year coverup by the multibillion dollar abortion industry, 
with the complicity of many in the media, will be over and history will 
be made.
  For the first time ever we will directly confront the violence of 
what the abortionist actually does. For the first time ever we will 
directly confront the child abuse called legal abortion and say yes or 
no. If this rule is adopted Members of Congress who have sincere 
differences about abortion will be faced with one important question 
and only one: Whether this procedure, which inflicts a death so cruel 
that it would never be inflicted on a convicted murderer, so cruel that 
it would surely be a crime to inflict such torture on a dog, is too 
cruel to be inflicted on a child.
  Mr. Speaker, the abortion industry knows that it can never win unless 
it deflects attention away from itself, away from the abortion 
procedures and on to something else. So this industry and its 
supporters are particularly infuriated when anyone threatens to 
describe an abortion procedure in detail. They attack as dangerous, an 
extremist, anyone who would describe such a procedure either with words 
or with pictures. So they know if this rule is adopted, if we have a 
fair and honest and thorough discussion today, not about side issues, 
but about the partial birth abortion procedure itself, the abortion 
debate will forever change.

  Americans will see that the real extremists are not the people who 
insist on calling attention to the grizzly details of abortion, such as 
dismemberment of the unborn child, including injections of high 
concentrated salt solutions and other kinds of poisons that chemically 
burn and then kill the baby, or this particular method, a brain sucking 
method of abortion. They will see that the real extremists are those 
who actually do these heinous procedures and want to keep it a secret.
  The dangerous person is not the one who shows us the pictures or who 
describes abortions, the dangerous person, the child abuser, is the one 
depicted in the picture, the person holding the scissors at the base of 
the baby's skull.
  Mr. Speaker, Dr. Martin Haskel, one of the leaders in trying to 
promote this method who has actually done hundreds of these partial 
birth abortions, said in a recorded interview that 80 percent of the 
partial birth abortions are elective abortions, abortions on-demand, 
not life of the mother abortions, which again this bill would allow. 
Dr. Haskel describes it this way. These are his words. ``The surgeon 
forces the scissors into the base of the skull. Having safely entered 
the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon 
then removes those scissors and introduces a suction catheter into the 
hole and evacuates the skull contents. That is the brain of an unborn 
baby. Evacuates the skull contents.'' How dehumanizing.
  Mr. Speaker, let us have a real debate on this issue today. Abortion 
methods and the coverup that has gone on for so long must end. Abortion 
is child abuse. This is a particularly heinous form of that child 
abuse. Why are so many good people on the other side 

[[Page H 11596]]

and on this side, that I know and respect, defending this kind of abuse 
against children?
  I urge Members to vote for the Canady bill. Vote for this rule. We 
need to end this legalized child abuse. These children are precious. We 
have to look at life and birth really as an event that happens to each 
and every one of us. In this particular bill we are talking about a 
baby who is half born. The feet are literally out of the mother's womb. 
Vote for the Canady amendment and vote for this rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], my good friend.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], a gentleman, a good 
legislator, and a very fine man for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand up as a sponsor of this legislation, actually I 
am proud to be an original cosponsor.
  While abortions, except to save the mother's life, are wrong for 
those of us who believe in life, this particular procedure is doubly 
wrong. It requires a partial delivery and involves pain to the baby.
  Mr. Speaker, you will hear the medical details of these abortions 
from other witnesses, but I simply lend my support to the bill as one 
who ascribes to a moral code and common sense. A compassionate society 
should not promote a procedure that is gruesome and inflicts pain on 
the victim. We have humane methods of capitol punishment. We have 
humane treatment of prisoners. We even have laws to protect animals. It 
seems to me we should have some standards for abortion as well.
  Many years ago surgery was performed on newborns with the thought 
that they did not feel pain. Now we know they do feel pain. According 
to Dr. Paul Ranalli, a neurologist at the University of Toronto, at 20 
weeks a human fetus is covered by pain receptors and has 1 billion 
nerve cells--more than us, since ours start dying off with adolescence. 
Regardless of the arguments surrounding the ethics of the procedure, it 
does seem that pain is inflicted.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to discuss a bill relating to 
abortion without saying that we have a deep moral obligation to 
improving the quality of life for children after they are born. I am a 
Member of Congress who is opposed to abortion. But, I could not sit 
here and honestly debate this subject with a clear conscience if I did 
not spend a good portion of my time on hunger and trying to help 
children and their families achieve a just life.
  We need to promote social policies that ensure the mother and child 
will receive adequate health care, training and other assistance that 
will, in turn, enable them to become productive members of society. We 
have not done a good job so far, and I am afraid to say, this House has 
been unraveling social programs all too easily. Until our Nation makes 
a commitment to offering pregnant women and their children a promising 
future, I am afraid the demand for abortion will not subside.
  Enough is enough. I'm glad we have a very clean bill in front of us. 
The vote is clean--up or down. Yes or no. No vagueness, no cloudiness 
to the issue. No chance to say my vote will be a definite maybe. If 
there's one thing this Congress ought to do this year is stop this very 
reprehensible and gruesome technique of abortion. We treat dogs better 
than this. Vote yes on this bill.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the title of this bill which we 
debate today includes the ultimate in gory contradictions--partial 
birth--abortion. Unfortunately, this contradictory term accurately 
depicts this horrendous abortion procedure in which a viable child is 
pulled partially from the womb only to be killed inches from life. It 
goes beyond repulsive. It goes beyond grotesque.
  H.R. 1833 would prohibit abortionists from committing this horrible 
medical procedure. While some of my colleagues might suggest this is 
the first step in overturning Roe versus Wade, that is not the case at 
all. I wish we were considering legislation to do away with abortion 
altogether, but this bill doesn't do that. This is simply a bill to 
prohibit one particularly despicable method of abortion.
  As a father of 9 children and a grandfather to 28, I have had a lot 
of experience in the wonders of new life being brought into this world. 
When a baby is born, it is the most innocent of creatures, its hands 
reach out for something to hold, its leg stretch and kick with energy, 
and its cry is filled with life.
  Compare this to what occurs during a partial-birth abortion. The baby 
exits the uterus, its hands extend to hold its mother, its legs kick 
wildly in the air as the child attempts to breathe, but its first 
breath will never come. As registered nurse, Brenda Pratt Schafer, of 
Dayton, OH, who has witnessed this procedure describes it:

       The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The 
     baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his 
     feet were kicking.
       Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his 
     head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startled 
     reaction, like a new baby does when he thinks that he might 
     fall.

  Abortion has always been a controversial issue in this body. There 
are so many strong differences of opinion involved--differences of 
opinion about when life begins and differences of opinion about the 
point beyond which life should be protected.
  But this procedure--the partial-birth abortion--is so grotesque--so 
inhuman--that I can see no way at all that any rational person could 
defend it.
  Join me in doing what is right by supporting the partial birth 
abortion ban act.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the distinguished ranking Democratic member on 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this vote against the rule is very 
important.
  I urge all Members to vote against this rule. It is a sham.
  Despite all the rhetoric on open rules, we get the door slammed shut 
when it comes to the most important issue of all: life and death.
  Because that is what this bill is about. It says that even when a 
mother is in danger of losing her life, she may not undergo a late-term 
abortion, even if the physician says it is necessary to save her life.
  That issue of life and death of the mother is thus relegated to the 5 
minutes in a motion to recommit. That is an insult to this minority and 
it is an insult to women.
  The language that a threat to a mother's life is an ``affirmative 
defense'' is also a sham in the bill. Anyone familiar with how the 
legal system works knows that this means a doctor could still be 
arrested, prosecuted, have to retain an attorney, suffer through a 
trial, before he could even suggest the defense of life and death 
necessity.
  This bill is not written with the interests of the American family in 
mind, but rather represents a cynical attempt to exploit a highly 
sensitive and personal issue.
  We learned at the hearings that third trimester abortions are 
incredibly rare--less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent of abortions 
are performed after 24 weeks. Only three doctors in the entire United 
States are known to offer abortions during this time period.
  We also learned that abortion late in a pregnancy typically occurs 
under the most tragic of circumstances--the fetus may be severely 
disfigured and have little chance of long-term survival, or a mother 
may have contracted a serious disease which did not exist at the 
beginning of the pregnancy.
  Ironically, the so-called D&X procedure sought to be outlawed by this 
bill is very often the safest procedure from the mother's perspective, 
and that the terms of the bill are so vague that they are likely to 
inhibit all third trimester abortions.

[[Page H 11597]]

  Despite these concerns, the Republicans are rushing through a bill 
that goes against the very principles they purport to stand for in a 
crude effort to take political advantage of the very difficult choices 
facing American families.
  How else can we explain a bill that would--for the very first time--
federalize the regulation of abortion, a matter traditionally left to 
the discretion of the States? How else can we explain a bill that would 
decimate the traditional doctor-patient privilege and shred 
constitutional protection of a woman's health? And how else can we 
explain the creation of a new tort action, with no dollar caps 
whatsoever? The sponsors are so intent on using the civil justice 
system to inhibit third trimester abortions that they would authorize 
lawsuits by men who have committed rape or incest.
  Vote against the rule, please.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to this rule and urge my colleagues to defeat it. This will be the 
first time that this Congress will address the subject of abortion 
without clearly protecting the life of the mother.
  I went to the Committee on Rules with an amendment that would very 
narrowly protect the life of the mother. It was very clear. It would 
just allow the physician to take into account preservation of the life 
of the mother. Never have we addressed this issue without clearly 
protecting the life of the mother.
  We should not abrogate our allegiance to women, facing the most 
terrible personal tragedy any of us could be called upon to face, 
without protecting her life, without allowing her and her husband to 
protect her life. Voting ``no'' on this rule will not kill the bill. It 
will merely allow the Committee on Rules to return to this House a bill 
with a rule that will allow us to consider the two amendments that 
would assure that a woman's life and reproductive future can be taken 
into account as she and her physician and husband decide how best to 
deal with a level of tragedy most of us will never experience.
  Men and women of this Congress, if it were your daughter, would you 
not want her life, her reproductive hopes and dreams, protected? Would 
you compound her agony? Would you compound her peril? Vote ``no'' on 
this rule. The Committee on Rules can bring back the bill with the 
right rule, so that we will have an opportunity to discuss fully the 
issues that are at stake here both for the woman and for the child. I 
urge a ``no'' vote
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill with very good intentions, but 
this is a terrible rule. As a Member, I am offended that we cannot have 
a true debate. The procedure that has been described as a partial birth 
abortion is abhorrent, it is repugnant, it is gruesome. But that is not 
the only issue. It seems to me that we have to logically and in all 
fairness consider the life of the mother. This rule does not allow us 
to do it.
  They say, well, we have an affirmative defense. That means that the 
doctor has to be arrested, he is in the process of prosecution, he has 
been humiliated he has the expenses, and then, yes, he gets to defend 
himself and say I made a decision on the mother's behalf. That is not 
the way this bill ought to operate.
  We ought to have the opportunity to debate not whether we ought to 
have the procedure, because I do not want the procedure. What we ought 
to debate is whether we ought to consider the life and the reproductive 
future of the mother as we make this decision.
  The gentlewoman from Utah said that this is an important issue. It is 
an important issue. It is not a fiscal issue. It is a moral and an 
ethical issue. It is an issue on which we ought to have a full debate 
and not a closed rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in 6 weeks my wife will have our first 
child. I cannot put into words the joy that she and I share together. 
For months this baby has been at the center of our hearts and our hopes 
and our dreams and our prayers.
  One of those prayers is that this little baby comes into the world 
with perfect health. But if for any reason our child has physical or 
mental disabilities, we will love that child and nurture it even more. 
But God forbid, if our physician in the next several weeks tells my 
wife that our baby for whatever reason has no chance of life, and that 
terminating this pregnancy was the best way to save my wife, my love 
one's life, and her ability to have children, to have the joy that some 
of you have already had, then that difficult choice should be my wife's 
and mine to make with her doctor, not this Congress' choice to make.
  No politician, no pollster, no interest group, so election should 
determine that choice for my wife and for me and our family.
  If my wife's life or her ability to have more children were to be at 
risk, I would want her doctor to be able to consider whatever procedure 
best protects her and that ability to have children.
  What so offends me about this bill is that a physician could be sent 
to prison for saving my wife's life. Let me repeat that, because it is 
incredulous, but it is true. Under this bill, a physician could be sent 
to prison for saving my wife's life. That is wrong, that is immoral, 
that is unconscionable.
  No Member of this House has the right to put the life of my wife or 
her ability to let us share in the joy that you have shared in in 
having children. No one in this House, no one in any Congress has the 
right to put that risk of my wife's life to task.
  Yesterday morning I talked to our physician, the person that we hope 
will deliver a health baby in just a few weeks. He told me that this 
bill as written could force him to choose in an emergency between 
risking his patient's life, my wife's life, or his going to prison. 
This Congress has no right to put that choice before any physician, to 
make a doctor choose between keeping his oath as a doctor or going to 
prison.
  This bill is not about saving the lives of babies. It is about 
risking the lives of mothers and their chance to have babies. This bill 
is not about protecting babies from late-term abortions. Look at it. 
Read it. The fact is this bill does not prohibit late-term abortions, 
not a single one. It deals with procedure.
  What this bill does do, though, is allow Members of Congress, in our 
great medical wisdom, to dictate to physicians what medical procedures 
cannot be used even if those procedures maximize the chance of living 
for one's wife or one's daughter.
  To my colleagues who share my personal belief that late-term abortion 
should only be used in rare and extreme cases, I plead with you to read 
this bill. Read it. It does not accomplish that goal. To my colleagues, 
even those that are pro-life, I plead with you to ask this question of 
yourself. If the life of your wife or your daughter or your 
granddaughter were at risk, if their ability, your wife, your daughter, 
your granddaughter, their ability to have future children were to be at 
risk, who do you want to make the decision about what best medical 
procedure to use? This Congress or your loved one.
  If you agree with me that that difficult choice should be left to our 
families and to our loved ones, not the politicians and pollsters, then 
I plead with you to vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on this bill.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I think it is 
important that we note exactly what we are talking about. I have great 
respect and agree with those who say that we need to protect the lives 
of mothers, but this procedure, Mr. Speaker, is not used for what 
people believe are emergency lifesaving procedures or circumstances, 
because this procedure requires 3 days to execute.
  Mr. Speaker, 9 weeks ago Thursday, I gave birth to my first daughter. 
I had to have my labor induced because my daughter was experiencing 
some difficulties and she needed to be born quickly. But it 
nevertheless took over 24 hours to induce my labor to the point that we 
could begin the real work of delivering my daughter. So this is not a 
procedure that is used in emergency life-threatening situations.

[[Page H 11598]]

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support 
of the rule and in support of this legislation.
  Five times my wife and I have been blessed to give birth to a child, 
five times the opportunity to hold a brand new, newborn baby.
  Mr. Speaker, it sickens me to think that some people believe it is a 
proper practice to delivery all of a baby, save only the head, and then 
before birth occurs, to jam a set of scissors into the back of the 
skull of that child and scramble its brains. That is what we are 
talking about, Mr. Speaker.
  Should that be legal in a civilized society? We are talking about 
civilization versus barbarism.
  Some people may not want to recognize the practice that we seek to 
prohibit. Some people did not want to look when Hitler was slaughtering 
the Jews or Stalin was slaughtering his countrymen. I am sure they did 
not want to look when Pharaoh went after the newborns or King Herod 
went after the newborn children, either.
  It was slaughter, nevertheless, Mr. Speaker. If we do not look, if we 
do not understand what is being done, and instead of barbarity, they 
call it a choice. We have got to get away from that kind of language. 
We have got to get where someone speaks for the child, speaks for the 
newborn, speaks for a society that cares about life.
  Words cannot convey the horror of this procedure. I would hope that 
no Member of this Chamber would endorse barbarism by voting against 
this legislation.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat 
this rule so this vote on this procedure will not come to the floor 
today.
  This legislation concerns a rare, extraordinarily personal, extremely 
difficult decision that a few families across this country have to make 
each year. This situation: A late-term pregnancy has become a crisis. 
What has happened is the life of the mother is at risk, her child will 
not be able to exist outside the womb, and some families choose to end 
this crisis.
  Let me be clear about what we are voting on. This bill does not 
eliminate other third-term procedures. Roe, the law of the land, 
permits this to protect the life of the mother. What this bill does is 
involve the Congress in an incredibly difficult medical decision.
  I fear for this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. It does, at times like this, 
begin to resemble a political gymnasium that plays political games to 
get political points, not a great hall which over history has debated 
the great problems that face this country.
  Do we know on restraint? Is nothing sacred for the individual from 
the interference of government?
  Vote down this rule, my colleagues. Return this tragic decision to 
where it belongs, in the doctor's office with the family.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Deal].
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the issue of abortions is, perhaps, 
the most divisive subject to enter the political arena. It is a 
specific subject encompassed with other broader subjects of religion, 
morality, and constitutional rights. Theologians and jurists have 
struggled with this subject for centuries, and in recent decades, as 
the quest to establish a civilized balance between the rights of the 
mother and those of her unborn child have intensified, certain markers 
or points of demarcation have been sought. Viability and corresponding 
trimesters of pregnancy have become the courts' standard. As uncertain 
and arbitrary as this standard may be, since it has a fluctuation 
factory of months or weeks, there should be no disagreement that 
partial-birth abortions should be prohibited--for here, the difference 
between life and death is not months or weeks or days, it is a few 
centimeters.
  Surely, no civilized society should tolerate such a barbaric 
procedure that allows the brains of a baby to be sucked from its skull 
within a few centimeters and a second away from its birth. Our humanity 
demands that we reject this procedure.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Schumer].
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  Let me say that, for the last year, my major involvement in this 
issue has been as author and then watching the FACE law, the clinic 
access law, be implemented; and what we say in that, why we needed that 
law, why a vast majority of people in this body, or not a vast majority 
but certainly a strong majority supported that law was because there 
was a pattern of intimidation. Doctors who were doing a perfectly legal 
procedure were being intimidated, harassed, threatened, and even shot.
  This bill, in my judgment, given what it does, extends that 
intimidation to mental intimidation. What it is doing is saying to 
physicians, by the way it is constructed, that they must choose between 
their Hippocratic oath, this and their fear of prosecution, very 
simply. A physician and his patient or her patient may come together 
and decide that something is perfectly legal and necessary.
  We have heard the horror stories all along, and then if the physician 
presumes that the life of the mother is at stake and feels that this 
procedure is necessary, he must then, or she must then, weigh the fact 
that once they do it, they will have to go to court and prove that the 
life of the mother was truly at stake or that no other procedure was 
possibly available. What kind of choice is that? What kind of country 
is this?
  If you wish to debate the issue of pro-life versus pro-choice, let us 
do it. My view that this is a matter that should be left to the 
individual because some people believe life begins at conception, some 
people believe life begins at birth and others believe it begins 
somewhere in between is not an issue for the Government to decide but 
for us and our maker. But do not try this back-door way of intimidating 
physicians to do something perfectly legal.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a supporter of this rule, 
this bill and a strong advocate for the human rights of all Americans, 
both born and unborn.
  This Nation must raise the value of life if we are to survive as a 
nation, as a prosperous people. We must value human life.
  My colleagues, this is an appropriate rule, because this procedure is 
so horrible, so inhumane that we should be able to vote right now 
without question to protect the lives of these little ones.
  My friends, what more do we need to know? This bill outlaws a medical 
procedure which takes a child, almost completely outside the mother's 
body and robs the child of its life. What more do we need to know? A 
child, a fully formed child with arms, with legs, a body, feet, hands, 
and fingers, all outside the mother's womb in the very same air that 
you and I breathe, yet it is legal to end the life of this child, this 
gift from God, and, of course, a beating heart.
  My friends, if it is not human, if it is not a human child, then why 
does their little heart have to be silenced? This silence should stir 
the very soul of this Nation and cause this House to act now. In the 
end, if we do not raise the value of life, we will have no life to 
value.
  I urge Members to support this rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, this is part of the ongoing stealth 
campaign to outlaw choice for women in America, and now it is through 
criminalizing an ill-defined medical procedure. This is the 
congressional equivalent of medical malpractice.
  For the record, let us make clear the American Medical Association 
did not endorse this legislation. In fact, I believe they unanimously 
rejected it. There is the same AMA which endorsed 

[[Page H 11599]]

the Medicare, Republican Medicare plan, so you cannot have it both 
ways.
  Let us go a little bit further about this rule. This rule prohibits 
any amendments which would exclude instances in the case of rape or 
incest or the life of the mother. That is simply not right. But 
unfortunately that is politics in the 104th Congress.
  Let us talk about parenthood, because I think those of us who are 
parents are all genuinely good parents. Last night I had the 
opportunity to leave early, to take my two daughters, Louise and 
Meredith, trick-or-treating in our neighborhood. It was one of those 
special moments that you get to spend as a father with your 4-year-old 
and 2-year-old. There are not many of those that you get in this job.
  I will not come to this House today as a legislator and vote to take 
away their right to this medical procedure if their life depended on 
it. That is wrong. There is not a parent in this House who should 
consider doing that. This rule is wrong. This bill is ill-defined. This 
is politics in its worst form.
  Vote against this rule.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an original cosponsor 
of the partial birth abortion ban, and so to voice my support for this 
rule. Let us be clear about one thing, this has nothing to do with the 
life of the mother.
  For those that support abortion on demand, they will use any excuse 
or any reason to overturn this rule.
  What I do want to talk about though is this procedure is so 
grotesque, any American who understands what this procedure is about 
would be against it. I believe that banning partial birth abortions 
would start us on the road to restoring sanity to our Nation's abortion 
laws and away from the abortion-on-demand policies this Chamber has 
supported over the last few decades.
  As the majority's report on this legislation pointed out, even the 
Roe court rejected the notion that a woman is entitled to an abortion 
at whatever time in whatever way and for whatever reason she alone 
chooses. Abortion on demand, that is what this bill's opponents are 
for, and what the heart of this debate is about.
  Is this Nation destined to forever retain the most permissive, 
immoral abortion laws in the industrial world? You know, we have laws 
protecting the environment, we have laws protecting endangered species, 
we have laws protecting the air and water. It is time that we have laws 
protecting the unborn child.
  I saw two bumper stickers this morning on a car. One said, ``Save the 
whales,'' and the other side said, ``I am pro-choice.'' What a sad 
state that this country has gone to that we are for saving the whales 
and murdering our unborn children.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, as a mother of three 
beautiful grown children, I just have to express how deeply offended I 
am by this discussion today. Thank God, my husband and I never had to 
make a painful decision like this.
  But how can we send this message to those few families that have to 
face this tragedy, that received a message that the fetus could not 
live and their wife was in danger of losing her life?
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us would ban a specific type of medical 
procedure used to perform abortions in cases where the life and health 
of the mother is threatened by her pregnancy. It would make it a crime 
for doctors to use this procedure to save the lives of their patients.
  This legislation undermines the right to choose by directly 
challenging the historic Roe versus Wade decision; and, my colleagues, 
I wish we would deal with that issue head-on rather than undermine it 
in this backhanded way.
  The bill provides no exception for cases where the life and health of 
the mother is endangered. Not only is it immoral, it is 
unconstitutional, and the fact that this closed rule does not allow us 
to protect the life and health of the mother is an absolute tragedy.

  Mr. Speaker, we tried to offer amendments, but the Republican 
leadership said ``no''. Let me explain very clearly what this bill does 
instead. Doctors who perform this procedure to save their patients' 
lives would be arrested, indicted and tried. At trial, that doctor 
would have to prove the patient's life was in danger. In other words, 
the doctor is guilty until proven innocent.
  This bill places doctors in an untenable situation. They have to 
choose between saving their patient's life and a 2-year jail term.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Salmon].
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, shame on those Members on the other side who 
are flagrantly misrepresenting this bill.
  You know if you read the bill that it provides an exemption in the 
case of saving the life of the mother; and any American who requests 
this bill, wants to read it themselves, will see exactly what you are 
dishing out today, flagrant untruths.
  What this is about, this is not the traditional pro-life-pro-choice 
debate. This is about a procedure so heinous as to take the baby 
outside of the body and leave the head still inside the womb and murder 
the baby.
  How far are we from China where they are taking the baby girl, as 
soon as they are born, and snapping the spine and killing the baby once 
it has already been born? What is the difference? How far are we going 
to be from that?
  I would not be surprised to see some of those of you on the other 
side defend that procedure as well. If you can sit there with a 
straight face and defend this kind of barbaric procedure and 
misrepresent with a bold face what this does, as you done today, shame 
on you.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, the amendment to H.R. 1833 that 
Ms. Lofgren and I had intended to offer this morning was narrowly 
drafted to protect the life and health of the mother and in those 
tragic instances of severe, fatal fetal abnormalities.
  While this is an emotional issue, we must remember that we are 
talking about real women's lives--in this case my former constituent, 
Tammy Watts, who lived in Monterey at the time she and her husband 
faced the painful choice to terminate her third trimester pregnancy.
  Tammy and her husband, Mitch, had been eagerly looking forward to the 
birth of their first child they had named the child, and bought the 
furniture, with all the dreams and joy of any expectant couple.
  The Watts' received the devastating news in her seventh month of 
pregnancy that their fetus suffered from a severe and fatal fetal 
anomaly, Trisomy 13. Their fetus already had enlarged and failing 
kidneys, no eyes, diseased and malfunctioning brain tissue, and a non-
functional mass of bowels, intestines, and bladder growing outside the 
body.
  The Watts' were told by numerous doctors that there were no surgical 
or genetic therapies to help their fetus. For all the advances in 
medical science, the sad and painful truth that Tammy and Mitch had to 
face was that their fetus would not live, even if carried full term.
  As if the situation were not tragic enough, Tammy was told by her 
physicians that if she had continued the pregnancy and let the fetus 
die in utero, dangerous toxins could have been released into Tammy's 
body, presenting grave risk to her health and to her ability to have 
children in the future.

                              {time}  1130

  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut said 
something quite interesting. She asked, ``Is nothing safe from the 
interference of government?'' Well, when a woman and her doctor decide 
that her pregnancy is inconvenient or inopportune, where does the tiny 
little member of the human family struggling to be born in the womb 
turn for equal protection of the law, for due process of the law?

[[Page H 11600]]

  The facts of life are and the facts of this legislation are the life-
of-the-mother exception is in the law as an affirmative defense. The 
doctor only has to show that he reasonably believed that the woman's 
life was in danger. He does not have to prove it beyond a reasonable 
doubt. He does not even have to be right. He just has to have 
reasonable belief that the woman's life would be in danger unless he 
performed this macabre, gruesome, Auschwitz-like operation, this 
butchery in the service of infanticide.
  I am stunned that people are not running from defending this type of 
gruesome procedure. Yet the only question that this bill asks is yes or 
no. Never mind the nuances and the highways and the byways. Do you 
support a process where an infant, a live infant, talk about I feel 
your pain, a live infant is almost extracted from the birth canal, 3 
inches from being a fully-born child, and a scissors punctures the neck 
and the brains are sucked out.
  Anybody that can find a word of defense for that is someone I do not 
understand. The American Medical Association Council on Legislation 
unanimously approved recommending this bill. The full AMA did not. They 
did nothing. They took a pass. They washed their hands. But at least 
the council on legislation unanimously supported it.
  Look: If one thinks abortion is a good idea, that is fine, go ahead 
and live with that. But this form of abortion is indefensible. 
Indefensible.
  This rule is a focused rule. It asks the question do you or do you 
not approve of this procedure? That is the only question that needs to 
be asked. The life of the mother is protected. Prosecutors are not 
going around indicating people willy-nilly when they have an 
affirmative defense, and it is an easy affirmative defense.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for support for this rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule on this bill for two reasons:
  One, this bill allows no exceptions--even to save a woman's life--
making this bill clearly unconstitutional. We asked for a rule to allow 
that exception but we were denied.
  Why? Because proponents of this bill want to challenge the legal 
right to choose for all women. This is just a step in that challenge. 
This is a legal strategy.
  The second reason I oppose this rule and this bill is that by not 
allowing an exception to save the life of the woman, this bill is just 
cruel on its face.
  My friends and colleagues, this bill bans the right to make a 
necessary medical decision when circumstances are most dire.
  Despite the other side's spin doctors--real doctors know that the 
late term abortions this bill seeks to ban are rare and they're done 
only when there is no better alternative to save the woman and, if 
possible, preserve her ability to have children. They are done after a 
family has given careful thought and prayer to the matter--and has 
sought out the best medical advice possible.
  When a woman is pregnant--with a pregnancy wanted and hoped for--and 
finds herself in a life-threatening situation late in that pregnancy, 
she is in grave danger and she's emotionally devastated.
  I cannot imagine a more cruel act this Congress could make than to 
tell that woman--that woman whose hopes and dreams rested on the 
pending birth of her child--that we won't even allow her doctor to take 
the necessary steps to save her life and make every effort to preserve 
her ability to try again when she has grieved the loss and her health 
is restored.
  Over and over again this Congress has picked on the weakest among 
us--the children, the elderly, families struggling just to make it--but 
now you're picking on a woman who very much wants to be a mother and 
you're telling her that her life means nothing. Telling he we'll jail 
her doctor for saving her life. Colleagues, we have never stooped lower 
than this.
  If you care about life--about families--search your hearts and vote 
against this rule and against this bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey]. As she reaches the podium, I ask Members to 
vote no on this rule, so we can send it back to the Committee on Rules 
and ask for a rule which would allow us to vote on amendments to 
preserve the life and health of the mother.
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for 
H.R. 1833.
  The proposed rule for the Canady late term abortion bill is nothing 
less than an outrage. This rule bars Members from offering amendments 
which would allow a procedure when the life of the mother is in danger 
or when the fetus is so malformed that it has zero chance of survival.
  This restrictive rule makes sure that an awful bill remains an awful 
bill.
  Ladies and gentlemen, let's make one thing clear. This rule ensures 
that H.R. 1833 will be a direct challenge to Roe versus Wade. In other 
words, if you are a pro-choice Member of Congress, if your constituents 
vote for you because they feel assured that you will not violate a 
woman's right to choose, if you agree that the mother's life has value 
then there is no way that you can vote for this rule.
  This rule will force the House of Representatives to vote on banning 
a specific surgical procedure with absolutely no safeguards for the 
life, health, or future fertility of the mother.
  To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle I urge you to defeat this 
rule. This issue does not belong on the floor of the House of 
Representatives, it belongs in a doctor's office. Politicians should 
not decide whether a terminally malformed fetus should be brought to 
term. A woman, with her doctor's advice, should.
  Remember this my friends, you can not say you are pro-choice and vote 
for this rule. Defeat this rule, stand up for women's lives, do not 
violate Roe versus Wade.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). All time has expired on the 
minority side. The majority has 1 minute remaining.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, if this Congress has no other purpose, are we not 
obligated to protect the rights of those in our society who are too 
weak to protect themselves? The procedure that is the subject of this 
bill denies protection, life itself, to children who are nearly born 
alive, but for a few centimeters with their head left in the birth 
canal, a procedure used for elective abortion, a procedure used on 
viable children.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about protecting the life of the 
mother. This procedure is too lengthy to be used in true emergency 
situations. It takes too long.
  This Congress, Mr. Speaker, cannot seriously defend measuring life in 
mere inches. It is time to outlaw this procedure, which even members of 
the AMA's Council on Legislation describe as repulsive and recommended 
that they take action against.
  This is barbarism, Mr. Speaker. It is an area where those of us who 
differ on other issues relating to abortion can agree, that this is not 
something we want to go on in our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information 
relating to rules reported by the Committee on Rules during the 104th 
Congress.

                                                                                                                

[[Page H 11601]]
  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                            [As of October 31, 1995]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 52                 69
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 18                 24
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  5                  7
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................                104                100                 75                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             



                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                            [As of October 31, 1995]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 95).            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)...........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 17..  Social Security.......  A: 255-172 (1/25/
                                                    H.J. Res. 1......  Balanced Budget Amdt..   95).            
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 101.........  Land Transfer, Taos     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
                                                                        Preserve.                               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............  O................  H.R. 2...........  Line Item Veto........  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                2/95).          
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 665.........  Victim Restitution....  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                7/95).          
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 666.........  Exclusionary Rule       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-100; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-127 (2/15/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 889.........  Defense Supplemental..  A: 282-144 (2/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 450.........  Regulatory Transition   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)...........  MO...............  .................  ......................  A: 257-155 (3/7/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 956.........  Product Liability       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps.                95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                15/95).         
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY   PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1817........  MilCon Appropriations   PQ: 223-180 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                245-155 (6/16/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1854........  Leg. Branch Approps.    PQ: 232-196 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                236-191 (6/20/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1868........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   PQ: 221-178 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   217-175 (6/22/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1905........  Energy & Water          A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       12/95).         
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 79.....  Flag Constitutional     PQ: 258-170 A:   
                                                                        Amendment.              271-152 (6/28/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1944........  Emer. Supp. Approps...  PQ: 236-194 A:   
                                                                                                234-192 (6/29/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 235-193 D:   
                                                                        1996.                   192-238 (7/12/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 230-194 A:   
                                                                        1996 #2.                229-195 (7/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1976........  Agriculture Approps.    PQ: 242-185 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2020........  Treasury/Postal         PQ: 232-192 A:   
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 96.....  Disapproval of MFN to   A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        China.                  20/95).         
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2002........  Transportation          PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       95).            
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 70..........  Exports of Alaskan      A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Crude Oil.              24/95).         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2076........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       25/95).         
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2099........  VA/HUD Approps. FY      A: 230-189 (7/25/
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95)..........  MC...............  S. 21............  Terminating U.S. Arms   A: voice vote (8/
                                                                        Embargo on Bosnia.      1/95).          
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2126........  Defense Approps. FY     A: 409-1 (7/31/  
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1555........  Communications Act of   A: 255-156 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1995.                   95).            
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 2127........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY  A: 323-104 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1594........  Economically Targeted   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Investments.            12/95).         
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1655........  Intelligence            A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Authorization FY 1996.  12/95).         
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1162........  Deficit Reduction       A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Lockbox.                13/95).         
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1670........  Federal Acquisition     A: 414-0 (9/13/  
                                                                        Reform Act.             95).            
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1617........  CAREERS Act...........  A: 388-2 (9/19/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2274........  Natl. Highway System..  PQ: 241-173 A:   
                                                                                                375-39-1 (9/20/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 927.........  Cuban Liberty & Dem.    A: 304-118 (9/20/
                                                                        Solidarity.             95).            
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 743.........  Team Act..............  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1170........  3-Judge Court.........  A: voice vote (9/
                                                                                                28/95).         
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1601........  Internatl. Space        A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Station.                27/95).         
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 108....  Continuing Resolution   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        FY 1996.                28/95).         
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2405........  Omnibus Science Auth..  A: voice vote (10/
                                                                                                11/95).         
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2259........  Disapprove Sentencing   A: voice vote (10/
                                                                        Guidelines.             18/95).         
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2425........  Medicare Preservation   PQ: 231-194 A:   
                                                                        Act.                    227-192 (10/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95).........  C................  H.R. 2492........  Leg. Branch Approps...  PQ: 235-184 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (10/ 
                                                                                                31/95).         
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95).........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 109.  Social Security         PQ: 228-191 A:   
                                                    H.R. 2491........   Earnings Reform.        235-185 (10/26/ 
                                                                       Seven-Year Balanced      95).            
                                                                        Budget.                                 
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95).........  C................  H.R. 1833........  Partial Birth Abortion  .................
                                                                        Ban.                                    
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95).........  MO...............  H.R. 2546........  D.C. Approps..........  .................
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the rule 
on H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 1995. When Republicans 
won a majority last November we promised to have many more open rules 
on legislation than in previous years. Open rules are essential in 
order to have an open debate on important issues. Yet, regrettably the 
rule before us today prevents us from voting on an 

[[Page H 11602]]

important amendment to allow for exceptions from the bill's provisions 
in cases where the life of the mother is endangered.
  This is an issue of great concern to many of us. It deserves to be 
openly debated, and it deserves a vote by the full House. Therefore, I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so we can bring this bill 
back under an open rule and allow the will of the full House to 
prevail.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that 
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 190, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 754]

                               YEAS--237

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Crane
     Fields (LA)
     Regula
     Tucker
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1201

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________