[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 130 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10608-H10620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DISCHARGING THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 
OF THE PRESIDENT'S VETO OF H.R. 1833, PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 
                                  1995

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The clerk will report the 
motion.
  The clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Canady of Florida moves to discharge the Committee on 
     the Judiciary from the further consideration of the 
     President's veto of the bill, H.R. 1833.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] is 
recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CANADY of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on April 15 this year President 
Bill Clinton vetoed H.R. 1833, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.
  As a result, the President is the one person standing in the way of 
Congress saving thousands of children from being partially delivered 
and then killed with an abortion procedure that has shocked the 
conscience of the American people.
  The drawings here describe the procedure called partial-birth 
abortion. These drawings describe this horrible procedure step by step. 
Mr. Speaker, in the partial-birth abortion procedure, the physician or 
the abortionist begins in this way. Guided by ultrasound, he grabs the 
live baby's leg with forceps. Then the abortionist pulls the baby's leg 
out into the birth canal. The abortionist delivers the living baby's 
entire body except for the head, which is deliberately kept lodged just 
within the uterus, as is depicted in this drawing.
  Then the abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The 
scissors are opened to enlarge the hole. This is the step in this 
procedure which kills a living human child.
  Next, in completing this horrible procedure, the abortionist removes 
the scissors and inserts a suction catheter into the baby's skull. The 
child's brains are removed, causing the skull to collapse, and the 
delivery of a dead child is completed. This tells the truth about 
partial-birth abortion. This is the truth that the proponents of 
partial-birth abortion have tried to conceal from the very day that the 
debate over this bill began. These are the drawings that the supporters 
of partial-birth abortion tried to censor and tried to prevent this 
House from even seeing and tried to prevent the American people from 
even seeing, but this is the truth that cannot be concealed.
  After the President vetoed this bill, which was passed with strong 
bipartisan support here in this House and in

[[Page H10609]]

the Senate, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York said, and I 
quote, ``I think this is just too close to infanticide. A child has 
been born and it has exited the uterus, and what on earth is this 
procedure?''
  Senator Moynihan is right. The only difference between the partial-
birth abortion procedure and homicide is a mere 3 inches. President 
Clinton and the abortion lobby have tried to defend this indefensible 
procedure by propagating a number of myths to mislead the press and the 
public.

  Supporters of partial-birth abortion have repeatedly denied or 
misrepresented the facts about partial-birth abortion. But the truth 
cries out against them. Despite their relentless effort to misrepresent 
and confuse the issue, the evidence continues to mount against this 
horrible practice. Both the National Abortion Federation and the 
National Abortion Rights Action League claim that anesthesia 
administered to the mother before a partial-birth abortion is performed 
kills the child, and therefore the child feels no pain when those 
scissors are being inserted into the child's head. Norig Ellison, the 
President of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, unequivocally 
stated that those claims had absolutely no basis in scientific fact.
  Dr. David Birnbach, the President-elect of the Society for Obstetric 
Anesthesia and Perinatology, said the claims were crazy, but despite 
these and other authoritative statements to the contrary, the abortion 
lobby continued to assert the falsehood concerning anesthesia.
  Dr. Ellison said that he was deeply concerned that widespread 
publicity may cause pregnant women to delay necessary and perhaps life-
saving medical procedures, totally unrelated to the birthing process, 
due to misinformation regarding the effect of anesthetics on the fetus.
  Consequently, I held a hearing in the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution to put to rest the anesthesia myth. The facts were clear: 
Anesthesia administered to the mother during a partial-birth abortion 
does not kill the child, nor does the anesthesia alleviate the child's 
pain. Dr. Jean Wright, a professor of pediatrics and anesthesia at the 
Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, concluded that the 
partial-birth abortion procedure, if it were done on an animal in my 
institution, would not make it through the institutional review 
process. The animal would be more protected than this child is.
  The National Abortion Federation, a lobbying group that represents 
abortion providers, also claims that partial-birth abortion was 
inconsequential because only 500 children per year were being aborted 
using the method. This myth exploded when the Record, a daily newspaper 
published in northern New Jersey, documented that doctors at a single 
abortion clinic in Englewood, NJ, performed 1,500 partial-birth 
abortions per year on women who are 20 to 24 weeks pregnant. That is 
three times the number the abortion lobby claims nationwide.
  The paper also reported that the New Jersey doctors say only a 
minuscule amount are for medical reasons. That is very interesting that 
the National Abortion Federation, which represents abortion providers, 
did not know about this. The people who are doing this are represented 
by that organization. Yet they claim such a small number of these 
procedures were being performed. It simply was not true. I would 
suggest it is very likely they knew it was not true.
  The admission of these New Jersey doctors that only a minuscule 
amount of the 1,500 partial-birth abortions they perform every year are 
for medical reasons brings me to the most pervasive myth promulgated by 
the abortion lobby. The abortion lobby claims that partial-birth 
abortion is only used in cases where a mother needs the procedure to 
spare her health or future fertility. President Clinton used this claim 
when he vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, asserting that the 
procedure is necessary for women's health.
  Unfortunately, for the most part this claim has been reported 
uncritically, although the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. 
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop insists that the President is 
misinformed about partial-birth abortion. Dr. Koop explains:

       In no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term 
     abortion as described, partial-birth, and then destruction of 
     the unborn child before the head is born, is a medical 
     necessity for the mother. It certainly can't be a necessity 
     for the baby. So I'm opposed to partial-birth abortions.

  Dr. Martin Haskell, who has performed over 1,000 partial-birth 
abortions, wrote that he routinely performs this procedure on all 
patients 20 through 24 weeks; that is, 4\1/2\ to 5\1/2\ months into 
pregnancy. Haskell told the American Medical News.

       I will be quite frank: Most of my abortions are elective in 
     that 20- to 24-week range. In my particular case, probably 20 
     percent are for genetic reasons. And the other 80 percent are 
     purely elective.

  Another abortionist, Dr. James McMahon, who performed partial-birth 
abortions in the third trimester on five women who appeared with 
President Clinton at his April 15 veto event, submitted to Congress a 
detailed breakdown of a series of over 2,000 partial-birth abortions. 
He classified only 9 percent as involving maternal health indications, 
of which the most common was depression. Other health reasons included 
spousal drug exposure and the youth of the mother. That is what they 
are talking about when they talk about health.
  Another 56 percent of these abortions were for fetal flaws, but these 
included a great many nonlethal disorders such as cleft lip and Down's 
syndrome.
  Most strikingly, Dr. McMahon did not list reasons, not even 
depression or cleft lip, for more than one-third of the partial-birth 
abortions he performed. McMahon candidly admitted that he used the 
procedure for elective abortions, explaining ``after 20 weeks, where it 
frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it,'' but he added, 
``Who owns the child? Who owns the child? It's got to be the mother.'' 
Property can be disposed of in such a heinous manner.
  Just this week the Washington Post described the real circumstances 
behind most partial-birth abortions. Dr. David Brown, a staff writer, 
wrote:

       The typical patients tend to be young, low-income women, 
     often poorly-educated or naive, whose reasons for waiting so 
     long to end their pregnancies are rarely medical.

  Clearly, most partial-birth abortions are performed on the healthy 
children of healthy mothers. But let me address the small percentage of 
partial-birth abortions that are performed on children with conditions 
that may be incompatible with life outside the womb. The President of 
the United States used his bully pulpit to tell women throughout the 
country that the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure must remain 
available because the only alternative is to allow doctors to ``* * * 
rip your bodies to shreds, and you could never have another baby even 
though the baby you were carrying couldn't live.''
  In response to this statement, this outrageous statement, Dr. Nancy 
Romer, a practicing high-risk obstetrician-gynecologist who is also a 
professor of medicine, said, this is totally untrue. There is no basis 
in fact for what the President has claimed. There is no scientific 
evidence, there is no medical evidence, to support that.
  The President has relied on a campaign of misinformation. The 
supporters of partial-birth abortion have relied on a campaign of 
misinformation. But it is time that we put a stop to the misinformation 
about partial-birth abortion.

  We have had women who have come forward who have had similar 
circumstances to the women who were there at the White House at the 
veto ceremony. They went forward with their pregnancies. They delivered 
the babies without the use of this procedure, and there was no harm 
done to them. They have stood and given witness to that fact.
  These brave women took it upon themselves to request that the 
President give them the same opportunity to meet with him that he 
extended to families who have had partial-birth abortions. On behalf of 
the women, Mrs. Jeannie French wrote to the President.

       Perhaps inadvertently, you sent a message of hopelessness 
     to women and families who anticipate the birth of children 
     with serious or fatal disabilities. This message is so wrong.

  Unfortunately, the President flatly refused to meet with them.
  When asked about vetoing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, Bill 
Clinton said:


[[Page H10610]]


       The President is the only place in this system of ours 
     where there is one person who can stand up for the people 
     with no voice, no power, who are going to be eviscerated.

  Eviscerate has a medical meaning; that is, to remove the contents of 
a body organ.
  Mr. Speaker, partially born children are being eviscerated. You can 
see it right here. Instead of standing up for these tiny, defenseless 
people, Bill Clinton stood in their way and stands in their way. I urge 
my colleagues to take this opportunity today to stand up for children 
with no voice, no power; children who are going to be eviscerated in 
the future unless we pass this bill over the President's veto.
  Vote yes on the motion to discharge, and then vote yes to override 
President Clinton's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Let us 
put a stop to this horrendous procedure. Let us stop partial-birth 
abortion in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER (Mr. LaHood). The Chair will remind all persons in the 
gallery that they are guests of the House, and that any manifestation 
of approval or disapproval of proceedings is a violation of the House 
rules.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], chairman of the subcommittee.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. It is the chairman in exile, Mr. Speaker.
  The gentleman who just spoke acknowledged that there are cases where 
there are health reasons. He said they are a small number. This bill is 
controversial for one reason and one reason only. The majority 
absolutely, in both branches, refused to allow an amendment that would 
have provided an exception where the health of the mother was at stake. 
In the other body, such an amendment was put forward and it was 
defeated. In this House, we went to the Committee on Rules and asked 
for the right to present it, and we were not allowed to do it.
  If the majority feels that the health-generated abortions of this 
sort are such a minuscule portion of the total, why have they adamantly 
refused to allow us to vote on such an amendment? We are talking here 
when we talk about health, about cases where the child to be born is 
unfortunately so severely deformed as to have no chance of life 
whatsoever, and the question is, if a doctor decides late in a 
pregnancy when this is dicovered that the child will not survive if 
born and that this is the method of abortion that minimizes risk to the 
mother, this bill makes that a crime. We were not even allowed to vote 
on that.
  Members have said that on the other side, ``Well, if you just say 
health, it will be too vague.'' Well, they have got the votes. They 
could have defined health. They could have said physical health. They 
could have said significant physical health.
  Understand that this bill would outlaw, as it is presented to us, and 
this is what the President justifiably discussed when he vetoed it, 
this would outlaw the doctor deciding in his or her judgment what is 
the best procedure for a fetus that has no chance of life outside the 
mother and the doctor says this is the safest way.
  We have had people who have said, ``Look, the doctor said to me if I 
didn't use this procedure, my ability to have children in the future 
would have been wiped out.''
  This bill says no. If in fact they believe that medical-generated 
cases are a small number, why did they not allow us to vote on this? 
The reason is, this is part of an effort by people who conscientiously 
believe that all abortion is wrong. The people pushing for this bill do 
not really differentiate in their own minds, morally, philosophically, 
any other way, between this particular form of abortion and any other 
form performed in the second or third month. They do not like the whole 
notion. No one does. It is not a pleasant thing to describe in any 
form. But the question is, if a doctor says to a woman in her sixth or 
seventh month, ``Look, we have sad news, the child you will give birth 
to will have no chance whatsoever of life and in fact if you give birth 
in the normal fashion, this could damage your health, and I want to use 
this procedure''; the doctor says, ``I advise that we follow this 
procedure, because in my medical judgment any other action would 
threaten your health,'' that doctor has just proposed the commission of 
a crime.
  Send this back to conference, give us an amendment that says 
significant physical health effects would be a reason to allow this, 
and you would not have a controversy because the President would have 
signed the bill.
  So that is the whole story. This bill refuses to allow a doctor and 
the pregnant woman to decide that in the case of a fetus that has no 
chance to live this is the best procedure and you would make that a 
crime.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, we are talking today about a procedure that 
is defined as the following: ``Partially delivers a living fetus before 
killing the fetus and completing the delivery.'' And we are talking 
about doing this with a pair of scissors inserted into the back of this 
baby's skull.
  Now, let me gently try to contrast that image that you have right now 
with one that is given in a very popular book today on the bestseller 
list, ``What To Expect When You're Expecting,'' when people are ready 
for the joy of a new birth in their family. In the fifth and the sixth 
month when many of these gruesome procedures are performed, here is 
what is happening to this baby:

       By the end of the sixth month, the fetus is about 13 inches 
     long and weighs about a pound and a quarter. Its skin is thin 
     and shiny with no underlying fat. Its finger and toe prints 
     are visible. Eyelids begin to part. The eyes are opening. 
     With intensive care, the fetus may survive now outside the 
     womb.

  So we are now contrasting a procedure that is brutal and gruesome and 
abominable with what we could put into care and technology and love and 
commitment to have that baby survive.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that in this body we spend billions of 
dollars on satellites in space that can pick up a license plate on 
Earth. We spend billions on defense, for F-117's to deliver cruise 
missiles. Can we not find a measure to ban these procedures?
  Mr. Speaker, pro-life, pro-choice people, this is not a question of 
one's philosophy. We all agree abortion should be rare. This procedure 
should be banned. Let us vote today in a bipartisan way to save our 
children, to be bipartisan, and to permanently ban the procedure that 
takes these precious lives that might and could be saved.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a distinguished member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, with great emotion I rise this 
morning really to speak to the American people, for giving birth, as I 
have done, is not a pretty picture. But, oh, what a wonderful sight 
when that bouncing and wonderfully larger than life human being comes 
into your arms.
  So as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, it was with 
great trepidation and tears and emotion that I listened to women come 
and not talk about death but talk about life, the kind of life that you 
see in these families.
  I am pained now to be on the floor of the House because Republicans 
have made a medical procedure now a political cause. I am pained 
because I personally know the pain of praying for a fetus to survive 
and it did not. I am glad I had the support of my God, my doctor, and 
my family. I believe Americans are praying people, who believe in the 
right to privacy in this most difficult and private matter.
  This is a medical procedure that is only done to save the life of the 
mother and to give a family the opportunity to bear children again. 
Note that I say a family, for this is a significant decision that must 
be made with the significant partner, the husband, the wife, the 
family, and, yes, the physician and their spiritual leader and their 
God.
  Listening to the testimony about a woman who had a child that could 
not be viable, the doctors told this woman

[[Page H10611]]

who testified that there was no hope, she asked about utero surgery, 
about shunts to remove the fluid that was on the brain. Nothing would 
work. There was pain. And the only thing that could work would be this 
procedure.
  In trying to seek some relief, this particular woman who testified at 
the Judiciary Committee went to several specialists, looking for an 
opportunity to preserve life. I ask for mercy today that we would be 
allowed to go back to committee to address the question of life.
  Birth is not pretty, but we want it to occur. This procedure is not 
pretty, and it should not be on the floor of the House, but God help us 
that we not take this time to deny American women and families the 
opportunity for life. Sustain the President. Allow us to fix it to 
provide life for Americans.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair 
concerning the amount of time remaining on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Canady] has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from Colorado 
[Mrs. Schroeder] has 24 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in the short time 
that I have for the people who are not in this Chamber today, who 
cannot speak for themselves but have spoken in other settings.
  This is a picture of Coreen Costello and her family. I am going to 
quote from a letter that she has written. If anyone wants it, they can 
ask their Member of Congress for the complete letter.

       Those who want to ban a controversial late-term abortion 
     technique might think I would be an ally. I was raised in a 
     conservative, religious family. My parents are Rush Limbaugh 
     fans. I'm a Republican who always believed that abortion was 
     wrong.
       Then I had one.
       Disaster struck in my seventh month. Ultrasound testing 
     showed that something was terribly wrong with my baby. 
     Because of a lethal neuromuscular disease, her body had 
     stiffened up inside my uterus.
       Our doctors told us that Katherine Grace could not survive, 
     and that her condition made giving birth dangerous for me--
     possibly even life threatening. Because she could not absorb 
     amniotic fluid, it had gathered in my uterus to such 
     dangerous levels that I weighed as much as if I were at full 
     term.
       At first I wanted the doctors to induce labor, but they 
     told me that Katherine was wedged so tightly in my pelvis 
     that there was a good chance my uterus would rupture. We 
     talked about a caesarean section. But they said this, too, 
     would have been too dangerous for me.
       Finally we confronted the painful reality: Our only real 
     option was to terminate the pregnancy.

  She goes on to mention that ``I'm pregnant again and due in June.''
  There are health issues that this procedure protects that would be 
banned and made criminal by this bill. That is a fact. The gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Canady] might want to ignore that, but it is a fact. 
I do not think there is any person that would want this.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], our colleague, we have got 
great news that he is engaged now, just got engaged, I guess, recently. 
Hopefully he is going to have children. I have a daughter who is 4 
years old. Some day hopefully she will have children.
  I pray that no one would ever have to face the choice that some of 
these women faced, but in the real world people will have those choices 
and they will have to make that choice of their own health or not, as 
to the best procedure that is available. I just do not think that it is 
the right thing for the U.S. Congress to do, to tell Mrs. Costello or 
other women that they should put their lives at risk in this type of 
situation.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for her leadership 
and for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation and to the veto 
override of H.R. 1833. I believe it is unconstitutional and interferes 
directly with the practice of medicine. It is an unwarranted and 
unneeded government intrusion into medicine and into the family. The 
bill destroys the family's right to face a devastating circumstance 
with safety and dignity. But don't listen to me. I think that nothing 
speaks more eloquently to this issue than the voice of some of the 
families who have been through these very, very sad circumstances.

                              {time}  1130

  Many women who have undergone this procedure have bravely shared 
their stories with Members of Congress and the country, because of 
their great fear that other women facing tragic circumstances late in 
pregnancy will not have access to the safest possible procedures.
  One such women is Vikki Stella, whose beautiful family is shown here. 
Vikki writes that her husband Archer and she live in Illinois, in a 
western suburb of Chicago. They have three children, Lindsay, Natalie, 
and Nicholas.
  A little less than 2 years ago Vikki had a procedure that this 
legislation would ban. She was in the third trimester of pregnancy for 
a much-wanted son. She was diabetic and therefore her health was of 
particular concern. During the pregnancy she had to inject herself many 
times a day with insulin, et cetera.
  She had prenatal tests showing her pregnancy was normal, but at 32 
weeks she says her world was turned upside down. She went in for 
another ultrasound which found grave problems that had not been 
detected before. ``Ultimately,'' she said, ``my son was diagnosed with 
at least nine major anomalies that included a fluid-filled cranium with 
no brain tissue at all.''
  Vikki said never in the lives of her family would they have imagined 
a disaster like this could happen to them. Their options were extremely 
limited because of her diabetic situation. A C-section or a normal 
labor were not options available to her without having potentially 
severe health consequences.
  The best option was a highly specialized surgical abortion procedure 
developed for women with similar difficult conditions, called an intact 
D&E. ``This procedure was gentle,'' says Vikki. ``Our baby was 
delivered intact. We held him in our arms and said our goodbyes. We 
named him Anthony.''
  Losing Anthony was a great tragedy for her, which she so generously, 
the Stella family has so generously shared with this Congress so that 
other women will have the best possible options available to them.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter from Vikki Stella 
referred to above:
                                                    July 29, 1996.
     Member of Congress,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Member of Congress: My name is Vikki Stella. My 
     husband Archer and I live in Naperville, Illinois, in the 
     western suburbs of Chicago. We have three children, Lindsay, 
     who is twelve; Natalie, who is seven; and Nicholas Archer, 
     who is seven months old. I am one of the women who stood with 
     President Clinton as he vetoed H.R. 1833, the so-called 
     ``Partial Birth Abortion'' Ban Act.
       A little less than two years ago I had a procedure that the 
     legislation would ban. I was in my third trimester of 
     pregnancy with a much-wanted son. I am diabetic and, 
     therefore, my health is of particular concern. During the 
     pregnancy, I injected myself twice a day with insulin and 
     checked my blood sugars eight times a day by pricking my 
     finger and using a glucose meter. I had more prenatal tests 
     than most women including an amniocentesis and five 
     ultrasounds. Our doctor had pronounced my pregnancy 
     ``disgustingly normal.'' But then at 32 weeks, our world 
     turned upside-down. I went in for another ultrasound, which 
     found grave problems that had not been detected before. 
     Ultimately, my son was diagnosed with at least nine major 
     anomalies: these included a fluid-filled cranium with no 
     brain tissue at all; compacted, flattened vertebrae; 
     congenital hip dysplasia; skeletal dysplasia; and 
     hypertoloric eyes. He would never have survived outside my 
     womb.
       Never in our lives had we imagined that a disaster like 
     this could happen to us. We went home to our house in 
     Naperville, to the bedroom prepared for out little boy--tiny 
     clothes folded, crib assembled, walls painted--and we cried.
       Our options were extremely limited because of my diabetes: 
     I don't heal as well as other people so waiting for normal 
     labor to occur, inducing labor early, or having a C-section 
     would have had potentially severe health consequences for me. 
     The best option was a highly specialized, surgical abortion

[[Page H10612]]

     procedure developed for women with similar difficult 
     conditions called an intact D&E.
       The procedure was gentle and our baby boy was delivered 
     intact. We held him and said our goodbyes. We named him 
     Anthony.
       Losing Anthony was the most difficult thing we have gone 
     through. When I was asked to come to Washington to share this 
     personal grief, I agonized over the decision to come forward. 
     This is not an easy story to tell. It's very private and very 
     painful. But I know there will be other women after me who 
     will need this procedure. Contrary to the image that is 
     portrayed by supporters of this bill, we are not mothers who 
     want ``perfect babies'' or mothers who are having third-
     trimester abortions because of cleft palates and missing 
     fingers. Well, yes, Anthony had a cleft palate. I wish to God 
     that was his only problem! He wasn't just imperfect--his 
     anomalies were incompatible with life. The only thing that 
     was keeping him alive was my body. He could never have 
     survived outside my womb, so I did the kindest thing, the 
     most loving thing I know to do. I took my son off life 
     support.
       When I went to Washington to tell Congress the truth about 
     this procedure, my oldest daughter asked me why I was going. 
     I told her that I was going because of Anthony. Lindsay who 
     was eleven at the time and very smart for her age, wanted to 
     know why I had to go to Washington because her baby brother 
     died. So I told her the whole story. When I finished she 
     looked up at me with her great big eyes and said, without 
     hesitation, ``Mommy, you did the right thing.'' It's a sad 
     thing when an eleven-year-old is wiser than some Members of 
     Congress.
       Fortunately President Clinton listened to my story and the 
     stories of families like mine and the tragedies we faced. He 
     took the time to meet with me and hear how important it was 
     for me to have the compassionate procedure. Holding Nicky in 
     his arms, the President understood that that beautiful baby 
     boy would not have been possible if it were not for the 
     safety of the surgical procedure that protected my 
     reproductive health.
       Please stand with the President and vote to sustain his 
     veto.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Vikki Stella,
                                             Naperville, Illinois.

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, in the 14 years that I have served in 
Congress I have faced many votes on this issue. Not one of these votes 
has been an easy one. I have tried to make a decision of conscience in 
each case.
  When I took a look at the drawings which the Republicans bring 
forward about this procedure, it troubled me. And I am sure as we hear 
this procedure described, it troubles us all, as it would most 
Americans.
  But then one day a woman walked into my office whom I had never met 
before, from Naperville, IL. Her name was Vikki Stella. She said to me, 
``Congressman, let me tell you my story. We had several children in our 
family and our baby was on the way. We had named the child. We had 
painted the nursery. We had the baby shower. And we were told late in 
the pregnancy that a sonogram disclosed that this poor new baby of ours 
would never survive because of tragic deformities.''
  Because Vikki was also diabetic and had her own medical conditions to 
be concerned about, the doctors warned her that if she went through a 
normal pregnancy at that point she ran the risk of never having another 
child. A double tragedy: Losing this baby and never being able to bear 
another.
  She and her husband laid awake at night crying over this decision. It 
was no frivolous, easy decision for selfish reasons, and they decided 
that it was best for them and their family to terminate that pregnancy 
with the procedure that would be prohibited and criminalized by this 
bill.
  She cried as she told me this story, and I started to have a little 
tear in my eye too, as anyone would. And then she brightened up and she 
said, ``You know what, Congressman? I'm pregnant again. We are going to 
have another baby. We will never forget our baby that we left and lost 
in this procedure, but our family is going to have another chance.''
  Think about that for a minute. Not one of us, not one of us would 
have wanted to face this tragedy with our family. But think of this 
possibility. If we override the President's veto, we would eliminate 
the medical procedure that gave Vikki Stella of Naperville, IL another 
chance to have a baby.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for 
yielding this time and for her leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I have only one thing to say today. I want to ask in 
this forum what one of the women who has had this procedure has been 
asking for weeks: Who are we to judge her and her family's heartache?
  I want this body to know that I listened closely to Vikki Stella's 
story of her family tragedy. I saw the anguish in her eyes, but I 
marveled at her willingness to retell the story of her heartache, of 
learning in the third trimester of fatal fetal abnormalities and the 
tremendous threat her diabetes presented if she were to deliver such a 
child.
  The Stella family's decision was not easy, and it has not been easy 
for her to spend the last year fighting against this legislation, but 
she has done it. She told me and she has told others so families faced 
with this personal tragedy have options.
  I want my colleagues to think about us who have had critical family 
health emergencies. We know that it is important that the medical 
community has the opportunity to tell us what will best preserve and 
protect the health and safety of our families. Intact D&E gave the 
Stella family the chance to protect Vikki's health so she could 
continue to be a good healthy mother for her two daughters. It also 
allowed Vikki and her husband, Archer, to have a beautiful son, 
Nicholas, who is now 8 months old.
  I do not support third trimester abortions except for in severe 
health situations. Vikki's story shows us why American families need 
this severe health exception, and this legislation does not contain it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, today this body of Representatives 
decides one of the most profound moral debates in the history of our 
Nation. Our children will look upon this day to see if we stood for 
principle. Will we vote to defend and protect the women and future 
children of this Nation? Will we vote for principle over political 
party? Will we defend our children or the President's veto?
  Almost as shameless as the President's veto were his efforts to paint 
himself as the defender of the health of women. According to Mr. 
Clinton, the life and health of women depend on the employment of this 
brutal procedure.
  No less an authority than former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has 
made it clear that a partial birth abortion is never necessary under 
any circumstance.
  I commend Democrat leaders, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], for their vote 
to ban partial birth abortions. And just as these two leaders stood up 
to their President, I hope all will follow their consciences and vote 
to override the President's veto.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, there is no issue that I agonize over, and I 
suspect many Members here agonize over, more than abortion. Except for 
the most committed on either side, the issues are not clear-cut and 
they are not easily resolved.
  I also believe that reasonable limitations can be placed upon 
abortions performed late in pregnancy. But this legislation goes too 
far because it says doctors performing abortion using this procedure 
can be fined or jailed for 2 years.
  The tragedy of this debate is not what is being said, it is what is 
not being said. Supporters say they want to prevent abortion. Yet the 
mothers who have this procedure, such as the women who have visited my 
office, did not want an abortion. They had to have this procedure to 
safeguard their health, their life, or because there was such a gross 
deformity of the fetus it was not likely to live.
  It is important to note also what is not in this bill, Mr. Speaker: 
Any language that would permit the doctor to perform this procedure if 
the mother's health was seriously endangered. That is right. Even when 
a mother's health is seriously endangered a doctor performing this 
procedure can be jailed.
  The supporters of this bill show dramatic pictures, artist's 
drawings, to make a case. Let me show a real photo

[[Page H10613]]

to make my case. This is Coreen Costello, who visited my office, and 
this is her family. Late in her pregnancy she learned the child she was 
carrying had a severe and fatal disability. Her doctors recommended 
this procedure because her child could not live and her health was 
seriously endangered. She had this procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, she has now had another child, Tucker, and so this photo 
becomes even more complete with Tucker being added to it. There are 
other photos, Mr. Speaker, and other real families: Vikki Stella; 
Claudia Ades and her family.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that when a mother's health is 
seriously endangered this Congress would stand between the mother, her 
family, and her God. There can be reasonable limitations, yes, on 
abortion, but I cannot support, Mr. Speaker, any legislation that is 
going to tell a doctor that if he or she performs the procedure that 
they feel necessary because a mother's health is seriously endangered, 
they can go to jail. I do not believe the American people want that 
either.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to comprehend an act that takes away the 
life of an infant just moments before his or her first breath. It is 
just as difficult to comprehend the veto of the bill that would halt 
this life-ending procedure by a President who claims to promote family 
values and respect for human life.
  I have received over 8,000 letters and postcards from my constituents 
urging me on to vote to override President Clinton's veto of the 
partial birth abortion ban. I completely agree with these people. This 
procedure is a violation of the sixth Commandment: Thou shalt not 
murder.
  In fact, hundreds of doctors, including Dr. Karrer, from 
Jacksonville, FL, a practicing obstetrician-gynecologist with 30 years' 
experience, all of them have come forward to say that partial birth 
abortions are never, never needed to preserve the life or fertility of 
the mother.
  As we may recall, President Clinton's argument for vetoing this 
legislation was that this procedure is needed to prevent a serious 
adverse health consequence. However, the Supreme Court's definition of 
the term ``health'' includes all factors: physical, emotional, 
psychological. Using these definitions, partial birth abortions are 
justified for reasons ranging from the mother's depression to a baby's 
cleft palate.
  Perhaps the President was misinformed, perhaps he turned a deaf ear 
to those who tried to give him these facts, or maybe he did not hear 
that 80 percent of partial birth abortions are performed for purely 
elective reasons. Whatever the case, President Clinton's arguments are 
flat-out wrong.
  If President Clinton hears nothing else in all of these arguments, I 
urge him to listen to the words of Mother Teresa who said, ``The 
greatest destroyer of peace is abortion. Because if a mother can kill 
her own child, what is left? For me to kill you and you to kill me. 
There is nothing in between.''
  I strenuously object to President Clinton's veto of this ban, and I 
urge my colleagues today to vote to override this shameful veto.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this debate has nothing to do with 
murdering babies; it has everything to do with murdering the truth.
  It is a deplorable and cynical move that the sponsors of this measure 
engage in to exploit the very deeply held and genuine religious 
convictions of millions of Americans.

                              {time}  1145

  If anyone, no matter how religious and how committed on this issue, 
really believes the opening statement of the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Canady] that there are thousands of babies across this country 
that are being stabbed to death moments before they are born into this 
world, then I would say to all these antichoice Republican militants, 
``The blood is on your hands this year, gentlemen, because you sat here 
after President Clinton wisely vetoed your bill on April 10.''
  They sat here at the scene of these alleged scissors murders. They 
sat here through April; they sat here through May; they sat here 
through June; they sat here through July; they sat here through August 
doing little or nothing as these supposed thousands of murders took 
place. They sat here until election eve because they were not concerned 
about these procedures; you were concerned about gaining political 
advantage with the millions of Americans who are genuinely concerned 
about the question of abortion.
  And, of course, my colleagues and their Republican antichoice 
militants, they have a broader pledge. Their pledge is to end every 
abortion, even when it results from rape, even when it results from 
incest. By golly, in Texas they even went a little further. They said 
even when a teenage father who will not marry the mother objects, there 
is not going to be any abortion. And this is the first step, not the 
last step, in addressing that agenda that mandates motherhood, whether 
the mother wants to or not.
  This same crowd will then come to this Congress and begin talking 
about scissor murders which are not occurring in America today; this 
same crowd will be here then telling the American people what kind of 
birth control, if any, they can use. Today is the first time that 
American women, facing a troubling health decision, are told: Do not 
ask your doctor; ask your Congressman.
  We are not going to follow that troubled path. It is time to stop 
meddling in the personal lives, in the most personal decision that 
American people face, that American women face.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly urge Members to vote to 
override the President's veto on this legislation.
  This legislation is much-needed if we are going to save the thousands 
of children who are killed unnecessarily each year by this procedure.
  There is a provision in this bill that exempts those procedures where 
it is necessary in order to save the life of the mother. So all other 
procedures not necessary to save the life of the mother are just for 
the purpose of killing a baby, because the mother feels, or the doctor 
feels, that it is not appropriate to have this baby at this time.
  It is a procedure that I feel, the scissors issues and the procedure 
is when this baby is at the moment of being born, taking its first 
breath and ready to live a life just like all of us, and then a moment 
comes where the doctor kills the baby, sucks it out and takes it out, 
and that is the end of it.
  I say, let us vote to override the President's veto.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, when this bill first came to the House 
floor, my wife was 8 months pregnant with our very first child. We were 
soon blessed to have a healthy baby who turned 9 months old yesterday. 
Our son is love of my wife's life and my life. He is the fulfillment of 
our hopes and dreams and prayers.
  Yesterday, I met another little child named Nicholas Stella. Because 
Nicholas was born within 8 days of our own child, I could understand 
the joy of his mother as he playfully strode across my office floor.
  Had this bill been law 2 years ago, Nicholas might not be alive 
today. As a new father, that is all the reason I need to vote to 
sustain this bill's veto.
  This bill is not about saving baby's lives; it is about politics in 
an election year. This bill risks the fertility and health of women in 
order to make a political statement in a 30-second TV ad or 8-second 
sound bite.
  What most citizens are not being told in America is that this bill 
will not outlaw late-term abortions; rather, it prohibits only one 
procedure that many physicians believe is needed to protect the health 
and fertility of a pregnant woman in tragic cases where her fetus has 
no chance of survival.
  All other late-term abortion procedures under this bill would be 
perfectly

[[Page H10614]]

legal, even if those procedures pose a greater threat to a woman's 
health or fertility.
  For anyone, for anyone here or elsewhere to suggest that I as a new 
father or anyone else in this House would want to allow the abortion of 
a healthy baby just moments before normal childbirth is ludicrous, it 
is deceptive, and it is totally dishonest.
  Mr. DORNAN. And it happens.
  Mr. EDWARDS. It does not happen.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas has 
the time.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Regular order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan] to please be seated. The Chair would ask the 
gentleman from California to abide by the rules of the House. The 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] has the time.
  Mr. DORNAN. I will, Mr. Speaker, but it happens. It happens.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Regular order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask the gentleman from 
California to abide by the rules of the House. The gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Edwards] has the time.
  Mr. DORNAN. I will, Mr. Speaker, but it happens.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask all Members to abide by 
the rules. The gentleman from Texas has the time.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if that happens anywhere at any time, if 
these Members of the House, including the one that just spoke, would 
work with us to pass a bill, we could put into law in the next few 
weeks, we could stop it from happening.
  But for anyone to suggest, as they have in fliers and ads, that we 
want to allow the abortion of a healthy baby just moments before 
childbirth is, as I said before and say again, totally dishonest and 
disgusting.
  I helped pass a bill that outlawed not one late-term-abortion 
procedure in Texas; we outlawed all late-term-abortion procedures in 
Texas. But in that bill that is now law in Texas we did what this bill 
should do. We said if the life or the health or the fertility of a 
woman is at risk, that moral and medical decisions should be made by a 
woman, her family and her doctor, and not by politicians and not by the 
government.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of this House to support the veto of 
this ill-fated, ill-designed legislation.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  (Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and against 
infanticide and I will do a 1 hour special order tonight continuing the 
debate. I say to my colleagues, please join me tonight.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Utah [Ms. Greene].
  Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I first learned about the partial-
birth-abortion practice about a year-and-a-half ago when I was pregnant 
with my daughter. At that time, I was asked to be a part of the 
original cosponsors of that bill and, frankly, I did not want to be 
involved.
  At that point, I felt that if, as a pregnant women, I stepped forward 
to engage in this debate, that the abortion supporters would pillory me 
as the poster child of the right. I did not want to tarnish the 
excitement and the joy of my pregnancy with this gruesome debate.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I had to change my mind after I read this. It is 
the Medical Journal article prepared by the doctor who pioneered this 
so-called practice, this so-called procedure. I read it through. I 
tried to forget what I had read. It haunted me for 2 weeks. I daily 
thought about what I had read here about a procedure that is, in fact, 
infanticide. And I decided that I had to step forward.
  Mr. Speaker, this so-called procedure has been defended as an 
emergency procedure when, in fact, this procedure takes 3 days to 
complete because the practitioner has to induce labor for 2 days before 
the person who is receiving the abortion can go in to partially deliver 
the child.
  It has been defended as being painless for the fetus, and yet 
anesthesiologists say, if they are using anesthetics for the mother 
appropriately, quote, ``Then it has little or no effect on the fetus. 
From a clinical point of view, you cannot depend on the fetus being 
asleep.'' That from the president of the Society for Obstetric 
Anesthesia and Perinatology.
  Mr. Speaker, we have provided an exception where the life of the 
mother is at stake. This gruesome horrific practice is opposed by the 
American Medical Association legislative counsel. It has been opposed 
by C. Everett Koop, our former Surgeon General, who says he believes 
the President has been misled as to the medical facts behind this so-
called procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the highest calling of this body is to 
protect the rights and interests of those who are too weak to protect 
themselves. Protect these children. Vote to override the President's 
veto and establish some civilized approach to a heinous practice that 
should not be allowed to continue in our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, today I will vote in favor of overriding President 
Clinton's veto of H.R. 1833, a bill to eliminate an abortion procedure 
commonly called a partial-birth abortion. I believe it is important for 
my colleagues to read a paper prepared by Dr. W. Martin Haskell 
describing the partial-birth abortion procedure, and to read an 
interview with Dr. Haskell in the Cincinnati Medicine. I would like to 
insert the interview and paper into the Congressional Record.

                 [From Cincinnati Medicine, Fall 1993]

                       Second Trimester Abortion


                an interview with w. martin haskell, md

       Last summer, American Medical News ran a story on abortion 
     specialists. Included was W. Martin Haskell, MD, a Cincinnati 
     physician who introduced the D&X procedure for second 
     trimester abortions. The Academy received several calls 
     requesting information about D&X. The following interview 
     provides an overview.
       Q. What motivated you to become an abortion specialist?
       A: I stumbled into it by accident. I did an internship in 
     anesthesia. I worked for a year in general practice in 
     Alabama. I did two years in general surgery, then switched 
     into family practice to get board certified. My intentions at 
     that time were to go into emergency medicine. I enjoyed 
     surgery, but I realized there was an abundance of really good 
     surgeons here in Cincinnati. I didn't feel I'd make much of a 
     contribution. I'd be just another good surgeon. While I was 
     in family practice, I got a parttime job in the Women's 
     Center. Over the course of several months. I recognized 
     things there could be run a lot better, with a much more 
     professional level of service--not necessarily in terms of 
     medical care--in terms of counseling, the physical facility, 
     patient flow, and in the quality of people who provided 
     support services. The typical abortion patient spends less 
     than ten minutes with the physician who performs the surgery. 
     Yet, that patient might be in the facility for three hours. 
     When I talked to other physicians whose patients were 
     referred here, I saw problems that could be easily corrected. 
     I realized there was an opportunity to improve overall 
     quality of care, and make a contribution. I own the center 
     now.
       Q: Back in 1979 when you were making these decisions, did 
     you consider yourself pro-choice?
       A: I've never been an activist. I've always felt that no 
     matter what the issue, you prove your convictions by your 
     hard work--not by yelling and screaming.
       Q: Have there been threats against you?
       A: Not directly. Pro-life activist Randall Terry recently 
     said to me that he was going to do everything within his 
     power to have me tried like a Nazi war criminal.
       Q: A recent American Medical News article stated that the 
     medical community hadn't really established a point of fetal 
     viability. Why not?
       A: Probably because it can't be established with uniform 
     certainty. Biological systems are highly variable. The 
     generally accepted point of level viability is around 24-26 
     weeks. But you can't take a given point in fetal development 
     and apply that 100 percent of the time. It just doesn't 
     happen that way. If you look at premature deliveries and 
     survival percentages at different weeks of gestation, you'll 
     get 24-week fetuses with some survival rate. The fact that 
     you get some survivors demonstrates the difficulty in 
     defining a point.
       Q: Most women who get abortions end pregnancies during the 
     first trimester. Who is the typical second-trimester patient?
       A: I don't know that there is a typical second-trimester 
     abortion. But if you look at the spectrum of abortions (most 
     women are between the ages of 19 and 29) they tend to be 
     younger. Some are older. The typical thing that happens with 
     older women is that they never realize they were pregnant 
     because they were continuing to bleed during the pregnancy. 
     The other thing we see with older women is fetal 
     malformations or Down's

[[Page H10615]]

     Syndrome. These are being diagnosed much earlier now than 
     they used to be. We're seeing a lot of genetic diagnoses with 
     ultrasound and amniocentesis at 17-18 weeks instead of 22-24 
     weeks. With the teenagers, anybody who has ever worked with 
     or had teenagers can appreciate how unpredictable they can be 
     at times. They have adult bodies, but a lot of times they 
     don't have adult minds. So their reaction to problems tends 
     to get much more emotional than an adult's might be. It's a 
     question of maturity. So even though they may have been 
     educated about all kinds of issues in reproductive health, 
     when a teenager becomes pregnant, depending up on her 
     relationship with her family, the amount of peer support she 
     has--every one is a highly-individual case--sometimes they 
     delay until they can no longer contain their problem and it 
     finally comes out. Sometimes it's money: It takes them a 
     while to get the money. Sometimes its just denial.
       Q: Do you think more information on abstinence and 
     contraceptives would decrease the number of teenage 
     pregnancies?
       A: I grew up in the sixties and nobody talked about 
     contraception with teenagers in the sixties. But today, 
     though it may be controversial in some areas, there's a lot 
     being taught about reproductive health in the high school 
     curricula. I think a lot more is being done, but the bottom 
     line is we're all still just human--with human emotions, and 
     particularly with teenagers, a sense of invulnerability; it 
     can't happen to me. So education helps a lot, but it's not 
     going to eliminate the problem. You can teach a person the 
     skills, but you can't make them use them.
       Q. Does it bother you that a second trimester fetus so 
     closely resembles a baby?
       A: I really don't think about it. I don't have a problem 
     with believing the fetus is a fertilized egg. Sure it becomes 
     more physically developed but it lacks emotional development. 
     It doesn't have the mental capacity for self-awareness. It's 
     never been an ethical dilemma for me. For people for whom 
     that is an ethical dilemma, this certainly wouldn't be a 
     field they'd want to go into. Many of our patients have 
     ethical dilemmas about abortion. I don't feel it's my role as 
     a physician to tell her she should not have an abortion 
     because of her ethical feelings. As individuals grow and 
     mature, learn more, feel more, experience more, their 
     perspective about themselves and life, morality and ethics 
     change. Facing the situation of abortion is a part of that 
     passage through life for some women--how they resolve that is 
     their decision. I can be their advisor much as a lawyer can 
     be; he can tell you your options, but he can't make you file 
     a suit or tell you not to file a suit. My role is to provide 
     a service and, to a limited degree, help women understand 
     themselves when they make their decision. I'm not to tell 
     them what's right or wrong.
       Q. Do your patients ever reconsider?
       A. Between our two centers, that happens maybe once a week. 
     There's a patient who changes her mind or becomes truly 
     ambivalent and goes home to reconsider, then might come back 
     a week or two later. I feel that's one of the strengths of 
     how we approach things here. We try not to create pressure to 
     have an abortion. Our view has always been that there are 
     enough women who want abortions that we don't have to coerce 
     anyone to have one. We've always been strongly against 
     pressure on our patients to go ahead with an abortion.
       Q. How expensive is a second trimester abortion?
       A: Fees range from $1,200-$1,600 depending on length of 
     pregnancy. More insurance companies cover abortion that don't 
     cover it. About 15 percent of our patients won't use 
     insurance because they want to maintain privacy. About 10-20 
     percent use insurance. The rest pay out of pocket.
       Q. What led you to develop D & X?
       A: D & E's, the procedure typically used for later 
     abortions, have always been somewhat problematic because of 
     the toughness and development of the fetal tissues. Most 
     physicians do terminations after 20 weeks by saline infusion 
     or prosteglandin induction, which terminates the fetus and 
     allows tissue to soften. Here in Cincinnati, I never really 
     explored it, but I didn't think I had that option. There 
     certainly weren't hospitals willing to allow inductions past 
     18 weeks--even Jewish, when they did abortions, their limit 
     was 18 weeks. I don't know about University. What I saw here 
     in my practice, because we did D & Es, was that we had 
     patients who needed terminations at a later date. So we 
     learned the skills. The later we did them, the more we saw 
     patients who needed them still later. But I just kept doing D 
     & Es because that was what I was comfortable with, up until 
     24 weeks. But they were very tough. Sometimes it was a 45-
     minute operation. I noticed that some of the later D & Es 
     were very, very easy. So I asked myself why can't they all 
     happen this way. You see the easy ones would have a foot 
     length presentation, you'd reach up and grab the foot of the 
     fetus, pull the fetus down and the head would hang up and 
     then you would collapse the head and take it out. It was 
     easy. At first, I would reach around trying to identify a 
     lower extremity blindly with the tip of my instrument. I'd 
     get it right about 30-50 percent of the time. Then I said, 
     `Well gee, if I just put the ultrasound up there I could see 
     it all and I wouldn't have to feel around for it.'' I did 
     that and sure enough, I found it 99 percent of the time. Kind 
     of serendipity.
       Q. Does the fetus feel pain?
       A: Neurological pain and perception of pain are not the 
     same. Abortion stimulates fibers, but the perception of pain, 
     the memory of pain that we fear and dread are not there. I'm 
     not an expert, but my understanding is that fetal development 
     is insufficient for consciousness. It's a lot like pets. We 
     like to think they think like we do. We ascribe human-like 
     feelings to them, but they are not capable of the same self-
     awareness we are. It's the same with fetuses. It's natural to 
     project what we feel for babies to a 24-week old fetus.


                          The D & X Procedure

       Dilation and Extraction (D & X), a method for second 
     trimester abortion up to 26 weeks, was developed in 1992 by 
     Cincinnati physician W. Martin Haskell, MD. It is a 
     modification of Dismemberment and Extraction (D & E) which 
     has been used in the US since the 1970s. Haskel has performed 
     more than 700 D & X procedures in his office.
       Step One--The patient's cervix is dilated to 9-11 mm over a 
     period of two days using Dilapan hydroscopic dilators. The 
     patient remains at home during the dilation period.
       Step Two--In the operating room, patients are given Valium, 
     the Dilapan are removed and the cervix is scrubbed, 
     anesthetized and grasped with a tenaculum. Membranes are 
     ruptured.
       Step Three--The surgical assistant scans the fetus with 
     ultrasound, locating the lower extremities.
       Step Four--Using a large forcep, the surgeon opens and 
     closes its jaws to firmly grasp a lower extremity. The 
     surgeon turns the fetus if necessary and pulls the extremity 
     into the vagina.
       Step Five--The surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the 
     opposite lower extremity, then the torso, shoulders, and 
     upper extremities.
       Step Six--The skull lodges at the intemal cervical os. 
     Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass through. 
     The fetus is spine up.
       Step Seven--A right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of 
     his left hand along the back of the fetus and hooks the 
     shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm 
     down). He slides the tip of his middle finger along the spine 
     towards the skull while applying traction to the shoulder and 
     lower extremities. The middle finger lifts and pushes the 
     anterior cervical lip out of the way.
       Step Eight--While maintaining this tension, the surgeon 
     takes a pair of blunt curved scissors in the right hand. He 
     advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his 
     middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull 
     under the tip of his middle finger. The surgeon forces the 
     scissors into the base of the skull and spreads the scissors 
     to enlarge the opening.
       Step Nine--The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces 
     a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull 
     contents.
       Step Ten--With the catheter still in place, he applies 
     traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the 
     patient, then removes the placenta.
                                                                    ____


       Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion

                       (By Martin Haskell, M.D.)


                              introduction

       The surgical method described in this paper differs from 
     classic D&E in that it does not rely upon dismemberment to 
     remove the fetus. Nor are inductions or infusions used to 
     expel the intact fetus.
       Rather, the surgeon grasps and removes a nearly intact 
     fetus through an adequately dilated cervix. The author has 
     coined the term Dilation and Extraction or D&X to distinguish 
     it from dismemberment-type D&E's.
       This procedure can be performed in a properly equipped 
     physician's office under local anesthesia. It can be used 
     successfully in patients 20-26 weeks in pregnancy.
       The author has performed over 700 of these procedures with 
     a low rate of complications.


                               background

       D&E evolved as an alternative to induction or instillation 
     methods for second trimester abortion in the mid 1970's. This 
     happened in part because of lack of hospital facilities 
     allowing second trimester abortions in some geographic areas, 
     in part because surgeons needed a ``right now'' solution to 
     complete suction abortions inadvertently started in the 
     second trimester and in part to provide a means of early 
     second trimester abortion to avoid necessary delays for 
     instillation methods.1 The North Carolina Conference in 
     1978 established D&E as the preferred method for early second 
     trimester abortions in the U.S.2, 3, 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes are at the end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Classic D&E is accomplished by dismembering the fetus 
     inside the uterus with instruments and removing the pieces 
     through an adequately dilated cervix.5
       However, most surgeons find dismemberment at twenty weeks 
     and beyond to be difficult due to the toughness of fetal 
     tissues at this stage of development. Consequently, most late 
     second trimester abortions are performed by an induction 
     method.6, 7, 8
       Two techniques of late second trimester D&E's have been 
     described at previous NAF meetings. The first relies on 
     sterile urea intra-amniotic infusion to cause fetal demise 
     and lysis (or softening) of fetal tissues prior to 
     surgery.9
       The second technique is to rupture the membranes 24 hours 
     prior to surgery and cut the umbilical cord. Fetal death and 
     ensuing autolysis soften the tissues. There are attendant 
     risks of infection with this method.

[[Page H10616]]

       In summary, approaches to late second trimester D&E's rely 
     upon some means to induce early fetal demise to soften the 
     fetal tissues making dismemberment easier.


                           patient selection

       The author routinely performs this procedure on all 
     patients 20 through 24 weeks LMP with certain exceptions. The 
     author performs the procedure on selected patients 25 through 
     26 weeks LMP.
       The author refers for induction patients falling into the 
     following categories:
       Previous C-section over 22 weeks.
       Obese patients (more than 20 pounds over large frame ideal 
     weight).
       Twin pregnancy over 21 weeks.
       Patients 26 weeks and over.


             description of dilation and extraction method

       Dilation and extraction takes place over three days. In a 
     nutshell, D&X can be described as follows:
       Dilation
       MORE DILATION
       Real-time ultrasound visualization
       Version (as needed)
       Intact extraction
       Fetal skull decompression
       Removal
       Clean-up
       Recovery
     Day 1--Dilation
       The patient is evaluated with an ultrasound, hemoglobin and 
     Rh. Hadlock scales are used to interpret all ultrasound 
     measurements.
       In the operating room, the cervix is prepped, anesthesized 
     and dilated to 9-11mm. Five, six or seven large Dilapan 
     hydroscopic dilators are placed in the cervix. The patient 
     goes home or to a motel overnight.
     Day 2--More Dilation
       The patient returns to the operating room where the 
     previous day's Dilapan are removed. The cervix is scrubbed 
     and anesthesized. Between 15 and 25 Dilapan are placed in the 
     cervical canal. The patient returns home or to a motel 
     overnight.
     Day 3--The Operation
       The patient returns to the operating room where the 
     previous day's Dilapan are removed. The surgical assistant 
     administers 10 IU Pitocin intramuscularly. The cervix is 
     scrubbed, anesthesized and grasped with a tenaculum. The 
     membranes are ruptured, if they are not already.
       The surgical assistant places an ultrasound probe on the 
     patient's abdomen and scans the fetus, locating the lower 
     extremities. This scan provides the surgeon information about 
     the orientation of the fetus and approximate location of the 
     lower extremities. The tranducer is then held in position 
     over the lower extremities.
       The surgeon introduces a large grasping forcep, such as a 
     Bierer or Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into 
     the corpus of the uterus. Based upon his knowledge of fetal 
     orientation, he moves the tip of the instrument carefully 
     towards the fetal lower extremities. When the instrument 
     appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open 
     and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower 
     extremity. The surgeon then applies firm traction to the 
     instrument causing a version of the fetus (if necessary) and 
     pulls the extremity into the vagina.
       By observing the movement of the lower extremity and 
     version of the fetus on the ultrasound screen, the surgeon is 
     assured that his instrument has not inappropriately grasped a 
     maternal structure.
       With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his 
     fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the 
     torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities.
       The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there 
     is not enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is 
     oriented dorsum or spine up.
       At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers 
     of the left hand along the back of the fetus and ``hooks'' 
     the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers 
     (palm down). Next he slides the tip of the middle finger 
     along the spine towards the skull while applying traction to 
     the shoulders and lower extremities. The middle finger lifts 
     and pushes the anterior cervical lip out of the way.
       While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and 
     applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the 
     left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved 
     Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances 
     the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle 
     finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under 
     the tip of his middle finger.
       Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and 
     safe elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the 
     scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen 
     magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the 
     scissors to enlarge the opening.
       The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction 
     catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. 
     With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the 
     fetus, removing it completely from the patient.
       The surgeon finally removes the placenta with forceps and 
     scrapes the uterine walls with a large Evans and a 14 mm 
     suction curette. The procedure ends.
     Recovery
       Patients are observed a minimum of 2 hours following 
     surgery. A pad check and vital signs are performed every 30 
     minutes. Patients with minimal bleeding after 30 minutes are 
     encouraged to walk about the building or outside between 
     checks.
       Intravenous fluids, pitocin and antibiotics are available 
     for the exceptional times they are needed.


                               anesthesia

       Lidocaine 1% with epinephrine administered intra-cervically 
     is the standard anesthesia. Nitrous-oxide/oxygen analgesia is 
     administered nasally as an adjunct. For the Dilapan insert 
     and Dilapan change, 12cc's is used in 3 equidistant locations 
     around the cervix. For the surgery, 24cc's is used at 6 
     equidistant spots.
       Carbocaine 1% is substituted for lidocaine for patients who 
     expressed lidocaine sensitivity.


                              medications

       All patients not allergic to tetracycline analogues receive 
     doxycycline 200 mgm by mouth daily for 3 days beginning Day 
     1.
       Patients with any history of gonorrhea, chlamydia or pelvic 
     inflammatory disease receive additional doxycycline, 100 mgm 
     by mouth twice daily for six additional days.
       Patients allergic to tetracyclines are not given 
     proplylactic antibiotics.
       Ergotrate 0.2 mgm by mouth four times daily for three days 
     is dispensed to each patient.
       Pitocin 10 IU intramuscularly is administered upon removal 
     of the Dilapan on Day 3.
       Rhogam intramuscularly is provided to all Rh negative 
     patients on Day 3.
       Ibuprofen orally is provided liberally at a rate of 100 mgm 
     per hour from Day 1 onward.
       Patients with severe cramps with Dilapan dilation are 
     provided Phenergan 25 mgm suppositories rectally every 4 
     hours as needed.
       Rare patients require Synalogos DC in order to sleep during 
     Dilapan dilation.
       Patients with a hemoglobin less than 10 g/dl prior to 
     surgery receive packed red blood cell transfusions.


                               follow-up

       All patients are given a 24 hour physician's number to call 
     in case of a problem or concern.
       At least three attempts to contact each patient by phone 
     one week after surgery are made by the office staff.
       All patients are asked to return for check-up three weeks 
     following their surgery.


                            third trimester

       The author is aware of one other surgeon who uses a 
     conceptually similar technique. He adds additional changes of 
     Dilapan and/or lamineria in the 48 hour dilation period. 
     Coupled with other refinements and a slower operating time, 
     he performs these procedures up to 32 weeks or more.\10\


                                summary

       In conclusion, Dilation and Extraction is an alternative 
     method for achieving late second trimester abortions to 26 
     weeks. It can be used in the third trimester.
       Among its advantages are that it is a quick, surgical 
     outpatient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis 
     under local anesthesia.
       Among its disadvantages are that it requires a high degree 
     of surgical skill, and may not be appropriate for a few 
     patients.


                               references

     \1\ Cates, W. Jr., Schulz, K.F., Grimes D.A., et al: The 
     Effects of Delay and Method of Choice on the Risk of Abortion 
     Morbidity, ``Family Planning Perspectives.'' 9:266, 1977.
     \2\ Borell, U., Emberey, M.P., Bygdeman, M., et al: 
     Midtrimester Abortion by Dilation and Evacuation (Letter), 
     American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 131:232, 1978.
     \3\ Centers for Disease Control: ``Abortion Surveillance 
     1978,'' p. 30, November, 1980.
     \4\ Grimes, D.A., Cates, W. Jr., (Berger, G. S., et al, ed): 
     Dilation and Evacuation, ``Second Trimester Abortion--
     Perspectives After a Decade of Experience,'' Boston, John 
     Wright--PSG, 1981, p. 132.
     \5\ Ibid, p. 121-128.
     \6\ Ibid, p. 121.
     \7\ Kerenyi, T.D. (Bergen, G.S., et al, ed): Hypertonic 
     Saline Instillation, ``Second Trimester Abortion--
     Perspectives After a Decade of Experience,'' Boston, John 
     Wright--PSG, 1981, p. 79.
     \8\ Hanson, M.S. (Zatuchni, G.I., et al, ed): Midtrimester 
     Abortion: Dilation and Extraction Preceded by Laminaria, 
     ``Pregnancy Termination Procedures, Safety and New 
     Developments,'' Hagerstown, Harper and Row, 1979, p. 192.
     \9\ Hern, W.M., ``Abortion Practice,'' Philadelphia, J.B. 
     Lippincott, 1990, p. 127, 144-6.
     \10\ McMahon, J., personal communications, 1992.

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren], a member of the committee.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this vote today regrettably has more to do 
with politics than it has to do with medicine or what families need. We 
know that the 30-second ads are running throughout the country--the hit 
pieces and mailers are going forward. It is a political issue for this 
Congress, but it is a real life issue for families that need this 
procedure.
  I saw Viki Wilson, my friend, yesterday. I was friends with her 
mother-in-law, Suzy, for 20 years, and I remember April 8, 1994 when 
they lost their daughter, Abigail.
  Abigail was a much-wanted child. They had two baby showers for her. 
The nursery was garnished with pink ribbons, but they found out in the 
eighth month that Abigail's brain had formed outside of the cranium and 
there was no way that Abigail could survive.
  They sought medical help to see whether some medical procedure could

[[Page H10617]]

be done to cure the defect in Abigail. They wanted her to live. But 
instead, their doctor advised that this procedure should be used so 
that Viki's uterus would not burst, so that they might have an 
opportunity to have another child, which they wanted to do.
  I remember the tears and the prayers of the friends of the Wilson 
family at that time. They needed friendship. They needed the Lord's 
help and guidance. They did not need the Congress of the United States 
to be involved in political wedge issues.
  This is about politics. Although I disagree with the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I 
do respect him. He has announced publicly that his goal is to have a 
constitutional amendment to preclude all abortions in America. I do not 
agree with him, but I respect his honesty in saying that.
  This is the first step toward that. It is about politics, and I hope 
that the American people understand that.
  In closing, I got a call from my late mother's very best friend, a 
devout Catholic who goes to Mass every single morning, and she told me 
that the priest had asked her to distribute cards against this 
procedure and she refused to do so.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and I rise in strong support of this veto override. And I want 
to address one very important issue in this debate. I remember reading 
the original American Medical News article back in 1993 when it came 
across my desk, when I was still practicing medicine, describing this 
procedure. And the people on the other side keep talking about these 
particular cases where we may, on an emotional basis, be able to 
justify doing such a gruesome procedure, but those doctors, Haskell and 
McMahon, admitted that in 85 percent of the cases these were in 
perfectly normal, healthy babies.

                              {time}  1200

  Partially delivering the baby, arms and legs moving, putting a 
scissors in the back of the head and then sucking the brains out in a 
perfectly normal healthy baby, 58 percent of the cases. In the 15 
percent of cases where there was birth defects, the majority of them 
were nonlethal birth defects, cleft lip, cleft palate.
  What kind of a nation are we, what kind of people are we where we 
would allow this procedure to be done on not only a healthy baby but a 
baby that simply has a cleft lip and a cleft palate? Where is our soul?
  Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that when the President vetoed this 
bill, it was the most cynical and despicable thing that he has ever 
done in his 4 years in the White House. I urge all my colleagues to 
vote in support of this veto override.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, everything about this debate is 
heartbreaking. It is heartbreaking the misinformation that has been 
disseminated. The thing that hurts me most hurt me back in the days 
before abortion was legal for women. And that is that women have no 
rights or abilities to choose. They are not bright enough. They are not 
nurturing enough. They do not have enough sense. It is only up to men 
in suits and ties to tell them what is good for them and how to think.
  Imagine a scene in a doctor's office where a doctor, a woman, her 
husband, awaiting a baby, desperately excited about it. The doctor 
says, I have bad news for you. Something seriously has gone wrong and 
we need to discuss our options. Now, they have some options. If this 
Congress has its ways, they will not.
  I remember as I grew up, young girls, knew that their future at the 
point of giving birth, if there was to be a choice between their lives 
or the baby would die. I remember kids, when I was growing up, who had 
no mother. She had died in childbirth. The woman who would have been my 
mother-in-law died in childbirth. My husband had a very difficult time 
ever finding out anything about her. No one wanted to talk about her.
  Before I gave birth to my first child, I worried terribly about that. 
I wondered, if my husband would be married again, would he marry a 
woman, as my father-in-law had, someone who would never discuss who I 
was or what I meant. Now, fewer women die in childbirth. There are 
options.
  How in the world can we make these kinds of decisions? It is the 
height of hypocrisy for Congress to decide. These babies that are 
aborted are desperately wanted. If they were not wanted, if the woman 
did not want this baby, she would have had the abortion early. There 
would have been no question about it. After waiting this long, carrying 
that child, you may believe me that child is wanted. The tragedy of a 
woman who said she could feel life and learned later that this was only 
seizures because the baby's brain was outside its body, the tragedy of 
a woman whose fetus had no lungs and yet people on radio programs said 
to her, why could you not give it the chance to live. How could it 
live?
  Can we please be sensible here and determine that American men and 
women really want what is best for their families. If we talk family 
values and family love, we have to say that families have some right to 
make some choices without an infallible Congress interfering.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this procedure is simply wrong. A 
compassionate society should not promote a procedure that is gruesome 
and inflicts pain on the victim. We have humane methods of capital 
punishment, and 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.
  This procedure is only performed in a few places around the country. 
Unfortunately one of those places is in my district. A local city 
council in Kettering, OH, took the rare step and passed a resolution 
supporting the override of the President's veto. I submit that in the 
Record at this time:

   City of Kettering, OH, Statement of Personal Intent Supporting an 
Override of the Presidential Veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 
                                of 1995

       Whereas: the partial birth abortion method has been the 
     subject of action by both the U.S. Senate through SB 939 and 
     the U.S. House of Representatives through HB 1833 both of 
     which pieces of legislation amend Title 18 of the United 
     States Code; and
       Whereas: this legislation received bi-partisan support and 
     passed by sizeable majorities; and
       Whereas: President Clinton vetoed that legislation on April 
     10, 1996; and
       Whereas: the members of Council feel that the partial birth 
     abortion procedure should not be permitted.
       Now, therefore, be it made known:
       Section 1. The members of the Council of the City of 
     Kettering who are present urge the U.S. House of 
     Representatives and the U.S. Senate to overrride President 
     Clinton's veto of the legislation referred to in the 
     introductory paragraphs of this resolution.
       Section 2. The residents of Kettering are encouraged to 
     become informed about this issue and then to contact Senator 
     DeWine, Senator Glenn and Representative Hall, as well as 
     other congressional representatives, to make their opinions 
     known.
       Mayor Richard P. Hartman, Vice Mayor Marilou W. Smith, 
     Councilmember John J. Adams, Councilmember Keith Thompson, 
     Councilmember Raymond P. Wasky, Councilmember John J. White.

       July 23, 1996.

  Finally, I do not want to discuss a bill relating to abortion without 
saying that I also have a deep moral obligation to improving the 
quality of life for children after they are born. 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 working on childhood hunger and trying 
to help families achieve a just life.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Campbell].
  (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, some of us are called to the ministry. 
Some of us are called to the priesthood or the rabbinate. We are called 
to be Members of Congress. When we take our obligation, we swear an 
oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
  This bill is unconstitutional. Our highest obligation is to uphold 
and defend the Constitution because that is

[[Page H10618]]

the oath that we take. Hence, we should vote no.
  Many conservative legal scholars applauded the Supreme Court's 
opinion in 1995, United States versus Lopez; so did I. In that case, 
the Supreme Court struck down the attempt by Congress to restrict the 
possession of handguns in schools. Not because it was a bad idea; I 
happen to think it is a great idea to restrict handguns in schools. But 
because it was beyond the ability of Congress; because it had nothing 
to do with interstate commerce. The Supreme Court said:

       The Constitution mandates * * * withholding from Congress a 
     plenary police power that would authorize enactment of every 
     type of legislation.

  The Supreme Court ruled that, in order for the Federal Government to 
have authority, the subject matter of the bill there had to be control 
over a means of interstate commerce, or interstate commerce itself, or 
something which had a substantial effect upon interstate commerce. None 
of those premises was present in that instance.
  The Supreme Court then gave examples of the kinds of things that the 
Federal Government constitutionally could not regulate. The examples 
they gave were ``family law,'' ``marriage,'' ``divorce,'' ``child 
custody,'' ``criminal law enforcement,'' ``child rearing.'' I am 
quoting each of those phrases from the Supreme Court opinion.
  What we have today is an attempt to regulate beyond the ability of 
Congress to regulate. Conservatives, who are so careful to protect the 
rights of the individual States against the intrusion of the Federal 
Government, should listen to the words of James Madison in the 
Federalist No. 45 and agree that this is an unconstitutional act. 
Madison's words were, ``The powers delegated by the proposed 
Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which 
are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.''
  Please obey your oath of office. Do not allow this unconstitutional 
law to become law.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would point out to the gentleman from California that the language 
of the bill specifically provides that any physician who in or 
affecting interstate or foreign commerce knowingly performs a partial 
birth abortion. The provisions of the bill, specifically, only govern 
those circumstances in or affecting interstate commerce.
   Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Inglis].
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of victims 
of abortion walking around today, people who now realize what they did. 
In fact, it is almost in all of our families, somebody had an abortion 
that now they know what it was.
  I cannot believe the Orwellian language on this floor today, that 
Members actually defend this procedure. The gentlewoman from Texas in 
the back of the Chamber said earlier, this is only about life of the 
mother. It is not. The guy who does this says that 80 percent of his 
cases are solely for convenience. So why did she say that? Why did the 
gentleman from Texas say things like, this is only about life? Why did 
the gentleman from California say it is about interstate commerce?
  Let me tell my colleagues what this is about: This is about a 
procedure where an abortionist delivers all but the head of a child. It 
does not deal with interstate commerce. That is not the essence of 
this. It is about sucking the brains of the child out. That is amazing 
that we would rely on that.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I include for the Record letters from the American Nurses 
Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 
and the American Medical Women's Association.

                                  American Nurses Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 30, 1996.
     The President,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As the Congress prepares to reconsider 
     vetoed legislation which would prohibit health care providers 
     from performing a certain type of late-term abortions, I am 
     writing to commend you for your veto of H.R. 1833 and to 
     reiterate the opposition of the American Nurses Association 
     to this legislation.
       It is the view of the American Nurses Association that this 
     proposal would involve an inappropriate intrusion of the 
     federal government into a therapeutic decision that should be 
     left in the hands of a pregnant woman and her health care 
     provider. ANA has long supported freedom of choice and 
     equitable access of all women to basic health services, 
     including services related to reproductive health. This 
     legislation would impose a significant barrier to those 
     principles.
       Furthermore, very few of those late-term abortions are 
     performed each year, and they are necessary either to protect 
     the health of the mother or because of severe fetal 
     abnormalities. It is inappropriate for Congress to mandate a 
     course of action for a woman who is already faced with an 
     intensely personal and difficult decision. This procedure can 
     mean the difference between life and death for a woman.
       The American Nurses Association is the only full-service 
     professional organization representing the nation's 2.2 
     million Registered Nurses through its 53 constituent 
     associations. ANA advances the nursing profession by 
     fostering high standards of nursing practice, promoting the 
     economic and general welfare of nurses in the workplace, 
     projecting a positive and realistic view of nursing, and by 
     lobbying the Congress and regulatory agencies on health care 
     issues affecting nurses and the public.
       The American Nurses Association respectfully urges members 
     of Congress to uphold your veto when H.R. 1833 is considered 
     again.
           Sincerely,
                                             Geri Marullo, MNS, RN
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

          The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,


                                   Albany, NY, August 1, 1996.

     William Jefferson Clinton,
     The President of the United States of America, The White 
         House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The American College of Obstetricians 
     and Gynecologists (ACOG), District II, an organization 
     representing more than 3,000 physicians practicing in New 
     York State, does not support HR 1833, the ``Partial-Birth 
     Abortion Ban Act of 1995.'' As an organization dedicated to 
     improving women's health care, ACOG, District II is disturbed 
     that Congress would take any action that would supersede the 
     medical judgment of trained physicians and would criminalize 
     medical procedures that may be necessary to save the life of 
     a woman. Further, this legislation employs terminology that 
     is not even recognized in the medical community to define 
     what procedures doctors may or may not perform. This clearly 
     demonstrates why Congressional opinion should never be 
     substituted for professional medical judgment. For these 
     reasons, ACOG, District II supports your decision to veto 
     this legislation.
       Thank you for considering our views on this important 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                John G. Boyce, MD,
     Chairperson.
                                                                    ____

                                           The American College of


                              Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

                                   Burlington, MA, August 1, 1996.
     William Jefferson Clinton,
     The President of the United States of America, The White 
         House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The American College of Obstetricians 
     and Gynecologists (ACOG), an organization representing more 
     than 37,000 physicians dedicated to improving women's health 
     care, does not support H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion 
     Ban Act of 1995. The College finds it very disturbing that 
     Congress would take any action that would supersede the 
     medical judgment of trained physicians and criminalize 
     medical procedures that may be necessary to save the life of 
     a woman. Moreover, in defining what medical procedures 
     doctors may or may not perform, H.R. 1833 employs terminology 
     that is not even recognized in the medical community--thus 
     demonstrating that Congressional opinion should never be 
     substituted for professional medical judgment. Accordingly, 
     ACOG supports your decision to veto this legislation.
       Thank you for considering our views on this important 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
                                        Joseph K. Hurd, Jr., M.D.,
     Chairman, Massachusetts Section.
                                                                    ____

                                           The American College of


                              Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

                                   Harrisburg, PA, August 1, 1996.
     William Jefferson Clinton,
     The President of the United States of America, The White 
         House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The Pennsylvania Section of the 
     American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), 
     an organization representing more than 1,700 physicians 
     dedicated to improving women's health care in the state of 
     Pennsylvania, does not support H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth 
     Abortion Ban Act of 1995.
       The PA Section of ACOG finds it very disturbing that 
     Congress would take any action that would supersede the 
     medical judgment of trained physicians and criminalize 
     medical procedures that may be necessary to save the life of 
     a woman. Moreover, in defining what medical procedures 
     doctors may or may not perform, H.R. 1833, employs 
     terminology that is not even recognized in the

[[Page H10619]]

     medical community--demonstrating why Congressional opinion 
     should never be substituted for professional and medical 
     judgment.
       Accordingly, the PA Section of ACOG supports your decision 
     to veto this legislation.
       Thank you for considering our views on this important 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
     Own C. Montgomery, MD,
                                                 Section Chairman.
     Kristi Wasson,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                           The American College of


                              Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

                                  Albuquerque, NM, August 2, 1996.
     William Jefferson Clinton,
     The President of the United States of America, The White 
         House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The New Mexico section of ACOG fully 
     supports your decision to veto H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth 
     Abortion Ban Act of 1995. We find it very disturbing that 
     Congress would take any action that would supersede the 
     medical judgment of trained physicians and criminalize 
     medical procedures that may be necessary to save the life of 
     a woman.
       I am sending a copy of this letter to the New Mexico 
     members of Congress hoping that you all will consider our 
     views in this matter.
           Respectfully,
                                              Luis B. Curet, M.D.,
     Chairman, NM ACOG.
                                                                    ____

                                           The American College of


                              Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

                                      Lincoln, NE, August 5, 1996.
     William Jefferson Clinton,
     The President of the United States of America, The White 
         House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The American College of Obstetricians 
     and Gynecologists (ACOG), an organization representing more 
     than 37,000 physicians dedicated to improving women's health 
     care, does not support H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion 
     Ban Act of 1995. The College finds very disturbing that 
     Congress would take any action that would supersede the 
     medical judgment of trained physicians and criminalize 
     medical procedures that may be necessary to save the life of 
     a woman. Moreover, in defining what medical procedures 
     doctors may or may not perform, H.R. 1833 employs terminology 
     that is not even recognized in the medical community--
     demonstrating why congressional opinion should never be 
     substituted for professional medical judgment. Accordingly, 
     ACOG supports your decision to veto this legislation.
       Thank you for considering our views on this important 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
                                           Joseph G. Rogers, M.D.,
     Chairman, Nebraska Section.
                                                                    ____

                                           The American College of


                              Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

                                      Memphis, TN, August 6, 1996.
     William Jefferson Clinton,
     The President of the United States of America, The White 
         House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I write in support of your veto of H.R. 
     1833. The Tennessee Section of the American College of 
     Obstetricians and Gynecologists similarly does not support 
     any governmental action that would intervene in a Physician's 
     ability to apply his or her best medical judgment. Similarly, 
     we do not support any legislation which would criminalize 
     medical procedures that may be necessary to save the life of 
     a woman. Our particular concern is the terminology used in 
     H.R. 1833. The term ``partial-birth abortion'' is not one 
     which is an accepted or defined medical term. We fully 
     support your decision to veto this legislation.
       We appreciate your consideration in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                              Frank W. Ling, M.D.,
         Faculty Professor and Chair, Department of Obstetrics and 
           Gynecology, University of Tennessee College of 
           Medicine.
                                                                    ____

                                          American Medical Women's


                                            Association, Inc.,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 31, 1996.
     Hon. Herbert H. Kohl,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kohl: On behalf of the American Medical 
     Women's Association, a national organization representing 
     more than 11,000 women physicians and medical students, and 
     several of our branches, we are writing to urge your 
     opposition to H.R. 1833, which would outlaw a particular 
     abortion procedure--the D and E (dilation and extraction) 
     technique, referred to as the ``partial-birth'' abortion 
     method by those opposed to abortion. Although this bill was 
     vetoed by President Clinton, we understand that efforts are 
     under way to override his veto.
       As physicians, we oppose any laws and court rulings that 
     interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, either in 
     requiring or proscribing specific medical advice to pregnant 
     women. Further, we oppose any measures that limit access to 
     medical care for pregnant women, particularly the poor or 
     underserved, and measures that involve spousal or parental 
     interference with a woman's personal decision to terminate 
     pregnancy. This bill would not only restrict the reproductive 
     rights of American women but also impose legal requirements 
     for medical care decisions.
       Our organization strongly oppose H.R. 1833 on several 
     grounds. We support a woman's right to determine whether to 
     continue or terminate her pregnancy without government 
     restrictions placed on her physicians' medical judgment and 
     without spousal or parental interference. This bill would 
     subject physicians to civil action and criminal prosecution 
     for making a particular medical decision. We do not believe 
     that the federal government should dictate the decisions of 
     physicians and feel that passage of H.R. 1833 would in effect 
     prescribe the medical procedures to be used by physicians 
     rather than allow physicians to use their medical judgment in 
     determining the most appropriate treatment for their 
     patients. The passage of this bill would set a dangerous 
     precedent--undermining the ability of physicians to make 
     medical decisions. It is medical professionals, not the 
     President or Congress, who should determine appropriate 
     medical options.
           Sincerely,
         Jean Fourcroy, MD, PhD, President, American Medical 
           Women's Association; Robin Oshman, MD, President, AMWA 
           Branch 100, Fairfield County, Connecticut; Jill 
           Braverman Panza, MD, President, AMWA Branch 102, 
           Albany, New York; Rosalinda Rubenstein, MD, President, 
           AMWA Branch 14, New York City, NY; Kathryn Budzack, MD, 
           Co-President, AMWA Branch 86, Madison, Wisconsin.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, 2 minutes, to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about abortion on demand 
in the 7th, 8th, or 9th month. Roe versus Wade and the law of the land 
allows for States to make that procedure illegal. So the specter of 
perfect babies being killed moments before they draw their first 
breaths is irrelevant to the discussion here today and are being used 
as a way to inflame the rhetoric and cloud the debate.
  What we are fighting about today is whether or not we should have a 
specific provision in the law allowing when the mother's life or health 
is threatened, that this procedure be available.
  We have started this debate with a picture. I wonder about some other 
pictures. Where is the picture of these moms who are for the most part 
older, married, have other children, are in the pregnancy that is 
desperately wanted, celebrated, with babies' rooms already decorated, 
tiny little clothes already purchased? Where is the picture of the 
agony that these families go through, cry through, pray through over 
the promise of a pregnancy that will never be fulfilled?
  Where is the picture of the horrible second guessing, the terrible 
hoping against hope that some sort of miracle is going to save this 
baby that can never live, all the while the mother knows that her 
health or her ability to have another baby could very much be in 
jeopardy? Where is the picture of mothers like Tammi Watts who weeped 
when asked the question, do you have any other children? She said, 
well, I have one baby in heaven. That is not a woman who would 
cheerfully end a baby's life moments before it would draw its first 
breath.
  Do not believe the discussion we are hearing today. Look at the 
pictures. Look at the facts. The debate is whether or not we will allow 
a woman's health to be an exemption from this law. One side says no, 
our side says yes. Get the real picture.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, let us stop kidding ourselves. 
Partial birth abortion is child abuse. That some otherwise smart and 
even brilliant people have been so thoroughly fooled by the abortion 
industry's outrageous lies and distortions and half-truths and those 
surface appeal arguments is at best disappointing and unsettling.
  How can anyone in this Chamber or in the White House defend sticking 
a pair of scissors into a partially born child's head so as to puncture 
the child's skull and then a suction catheter is inserted to suck out 
the child's brains? How can anybody defend that?
  My wife Marie is a former elementary schoolteacher. This morning she 
said that, if a child or a student were to do that to her doll, stick 
the doll in the back of the head with scissors, we

[[Page H10620]]

would think the child needed psychological counseling and would 
immediately call for that kind of help. Yet the abortion President, 
Bill Clinton, seeks to continue legal sanction of this gruesome assault 
on children, with real scissors and real babies.
  Finally, we are seeing what the right to choose really means 
executing untold thousands of children by stabbing them and sucking out 
their brains. I guess we now know how far the so-called prochoice 
movement will go to sustain the Orwellian supermyth that abortion is 
somehow sane, somehow compassionate, and even prochild.

  Americans will now see that the real extremists are not the people 
who insist on calling attention to the grisly details of abortion, 
dismemberment of the baby's fragile body, brain-sucking abortions or 
chemical injections. They will see that the people who actually 
dismember, poison, or hold the scissors at the base of the skull, they 
are the dangerous people.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of myths that the abortion lobby has 
circulated about partial-birth abortion. This past Sunday in the Sunday 
Record (of Bergen), a proabortion newspaper in my State, again exposed 
the lie that there are 500 partial-birth abortions in the country each 
year. The proabortion lobby seeks to trivialize the issue by grossly 
undercounting the actual number. The article, however, points out that 
in one New Jersey abortion mill alone, each year 1,500 partial-birth 
abortions are performed.

                              {time}  1215

  The Record article also points out that the indicators for most of 
those abortions are nonmedical in that abortion clinic. Just like Dr. 
Haskill, one of the pioneers in this gruesome procedure, who has said 
that 80 percent of those who he sees are doing it for purely elective 
reasons. The Sunday Record pointed out, and I quote:

       Interviews with physicians who use the method reveal that 
     in New Jersey alone at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions 
     are performed each year, three times the supposed national 
     rate. Moreover, doctors say that only a minuscule amount are 
     for medical reasons.

  Mr. Speaker, it is time to begin to stand up for these unborn 
children and these partially born children and these newly born 
children. This is a matter of human rights. The abortion side, the 
abortion lobby, has sanitized these killings, they have kept people in 
the dark. But, the dirty secret of the abortion rights movement is 
finally out: Abortion kills babies, it is child abuse and we can stop 
some of that abuse by overriding Bill Clinton's antichild veto.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] to discharge the Committee on the 
Judiciary from the further consideration of the veto message on H.R. 
1833.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. 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 288, 
nays 133, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 421]

                               YEAS--288

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--133

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Morella
     Nadler
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Dicks
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Hayes
     Heineman
     Johnston
     Lincoln
     Longley
     Peterson (FL)
     Thornton

                              {time}  1236

  The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote:

       Mr. Hayes for, with Ms. Furse against.

  Mr. TORKILDSEN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. ESHOO and Mr. WILLIAMS changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  
                            ____________________