[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 37 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1192-H1202]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1997
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 100 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 100
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
1122) to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial
birth abortions. The bill shall be considered as read for
amendment. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) 2 hours of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Barton of Texas). The gentlewoman from
North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
{time} 1045
Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 1122,
the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, under a closed rule. The
rule provides for 2 hours of debate divided equally between the
chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. Finally, it provides for one motion to recommit.
In short, H.R. 1122 outlaws the practice of partial-birth abortions.
Any physician who performs this inhumane act may receive a fine or
receive up to 2 years in prison, or both. The bill explicitly states
that if the procedure is necessary to save the life of a mother who is
threatened by a physical disorder, illness or injury and no other
medical procedure would do, then the physician will not be held liable.
The language in H.R. 1122 is identical to the language in the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995, which was vetoed by the
President. Members may hear objections by the other side that this bill
has not passed through the committee process, but I would like to point
out that this is the same language that 80 percent of the American
people supported when it passed through Congress previously. The bottom
line is that this is not new language we are trying to sneak past
anybody. My colleagues are well aware of what this bill contains and
any other assertion would be disingenuous at best.
During debate on the resolution and the bill itself, you may hear
some voices of discontent from Members on both sides of the aisle. I
urge my colleagues to make sure they do not lose sight of the true
focus of this debate, the horrible procedure known as partial-birth
abortion. Try not to forget that the reason we are considering this
important bill is to preserve the life of these vulnerable and fragile
children. We are talking about human life. When this issue was before
the subcommittee, they received testimony from Whitney Goin, proud
mother of a beautiful young baby that was born with the organs
developed outside of the body. The doctors told her to abort the child,
but she elected to have her baby. With the help of skilled doctors and
extensive surgery, the child was able to survive and is alive today. No
one can ever replace the love and affection that she will be able to
share with her baby for the rest of her life.
I would encourage all of my colleagues to read the piece by George
Will that appeared in yesterday's newspaper. In it, he gives an
eloquent argument against this procedure. His son Jon is about to
celebrate his 21st birthday. Jon has Down's syndrome, and his parents
were asked to decide if they should take him home or not. Jon is
leading a productive, happy life despite his mental retardation.
I point out these two cases, and there are countless others, because
they are a testament to the fact that life is precious and should not
be squandered. The joy that children bring to their parents, regardless
of their physical or mental condition, is boundless and must be
respected. I cannot help but think of my own two sons and my seven
grandchildren and the joy that they bring to us.
Mr. Speaker, I again implore my colleagues to support the ban and
allow these children the opportunity to live a happy and productive
life.
Abortion has long been an issue that divides our Nation. People on
both sides argue with great conviction that they are protecting sacred
human rights. However, we are not talking about the general issue of
abortion during this debate. Today's debate is about what our society
values as right or wrong. We will decide whether our Nation will
continue to allow the appalling practice of partial-birth abortion to
continue.
I am sure that every one of my colleagues is fully aware of the
details of this particularly repugnant form of abortion. Therefore, I
am not going to again describe the procedure. But I am going to
challenge my colleagues to consider H.R. 1122 on the merits of the
legislation and make their decision based on the facts as we know them
to be today.
I am sure some of my colleagues made a decision to oppose similar
legislation in the past based on false information provided to them by
pro-abortion groups and Ron Fitzsimmons, the Executive Director of the
National Coalition of Abortion Providers. He said that he lied through
his teeth when he said the procedure was rarely used. He now admits
that pro-life groups were accurate when they said that the procedure is
common. By Mr.
[[Page H1193]]
Fitzsimmons' estimate, 3,000 to 5,000 partial-birth abortions are
performed every year.
To further underscore the lies and deception, Mr. Fitzsimmons said in
the Medical News, an American Medical Association journal, that ``In
the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy
mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along.'' He
further went on to state that the abortion rights folks know it, the
antiabortion folks know it and so probably does everybody else.
In fact, the truth is the vast majority of cases are performed on
healthy mothers with healthy babies. Mr. Fitzsimmons intentionally lied
about partial-birth abortions to mislead people because he feared the
truth would damage the cause of his allies. While explaining his veto,
the President echoed the argument of Mr. Fitzsimmons and his
colleagues. H.R. 1122 will allow the President the opportunity to
reevaluate this issue, this time with accurate information on which to
base his decision.
He is not alone. I urge my colleagues who opposed banning partial-
birth abortions in the past to reflect on the truth about the
misinformation that Mr. Fitzsimmons and the pro-abortion lobby has
circulated before making your final decision on this critical issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Armey], the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Let me
also thank the minority side for their patience with this yield.
Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order 2 hours of debate on a subject
that many of us would rather we did not have to debate in this country.
This is a subject that is heartbreaking to all of us. Irrespective of
which side of the debate we find ourselves, it breaks one's heart to
realize the subject under consideration here.
We are talking about whether or not this Nation can, through its
elected representation, tolerate or must it ban a particular procedure
by which the life of a child is snuffed out. There are going to be
heartfelt differences on this issue, make no mistake about it.
Mr. Speaker, whether you think this is about the child and the
Government's obligation to protect life or if you think it is about the
mother and her rights to her freedom, her privacy and her control over
her own destiny, should we expect any Member of this body to come at
this issue casually, or should we not expect us to have in each of the
two sides an intensity of conviction and commitment to our point of
view?
In this 2 hours of debate, Mr. Speaker, there are going to be a lot
of hard facts that are going to be put up before us. There are going to
be a lot of things we do not want to hear about and do not want to see.
There are going to be some arguments we are not going to particularly
appreciate. But let us ask this of ourselves: Out of respect for the
importance of this issue to both sides and the gravity of the issue and
the lives of the people who are affected by it across this Nation, even
if we are not able to respect the arguments made by one another, can we
respect their right to make those arguments? And can we carry on a
discourse over this subject that is serious, that is sober and that is,
if I may daresay, as reverent as this subject demands. That is the plea
I would make for our body today.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill, H.R. 1122.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues in the strongest possible terms
to defeat the previous question on this rule. The process the majority
has used to bring this rule and bill before the House of
Representatives makes a mockery of our legislative process. The bill
that would be made in order by this rule is not the bill reported by
the Judiciary Committee. It is not the bill that the Rules Committee
heard testimony on yesterday.
Last night in an unprecedented move, the majority members of the
Committee on Rules discarded legislation that had been approved by the
subcommittee and the full Committee on the Judiciary and replaced it
with a bill from the last term.
Several improving amendments that had been accepted by the Committee
on the Judiciary were tossed away. In an unusual agreement with the
Senate, the majority leadership of this body determined that they
wanted to send the President a bill identical to the one he vetoed last
year. The President has made it clear that he will veto any bill that
does not pass the test of the four women who visited him in his office
explaining that the procedure we are discussing today was necessary to
preserve their health, their lives, and their reproductive ability.
The minority of the Committee on Rules had no more input than did the
Committee on the Judiciary. We were simply confronted with a fait
accompli in the form of the already-vetoed and expired bill from the
last term. It is obvious that the Committee on Rules chose to invite
another veto rather than meeting the President's criteria for signing
this bill, and that calls into question their sincerity on this entire
issue.
One amendment approved by the Committee on the Judiciary that is not
in this bill would have prevented a father who had abandoned or abused
the mother of the fetus from suing for damages. I want to make this
clear, that anyone who votes for this bill made in order by this rule
is voting to allow batterers and abusers to profit from the tragedy
that leads to this procedure. Imagine, an abuser, an abandoner, or
rapist can sue his victim who is already damaged.
Ironically, providers can be sued for damages resulting from both
psychological and physical injuries, and yet the majority refuses to
allow the bill to be amended to provide an exception to protect the
woman's psychological health. In other words, her's does not matter.
The father's does. That amendment would have enhanced the chances of
this bill becoming law.
Another amendment passed by the Committee on the Judiciary but
deleted in the new version of the bill passed last night clarified that
the life exception in the bill includes situations in which the
mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy itself. There is no
protection for her. Regardless of where one stands on the issue of
abortion, I believe all of us would agree that these two amendments are
necessary.
All Members know that at the end of a congressional term, all bills
previously filed have died and certainly a vetoed bill has died.
Bringing back a bill from a previous term has not only rendered useless
the work of the committee and those interested enough to produce
amendments, but has disenfranchised the new members of the Committee on
the Judiciary and their constituents who were not members last term.
This means they had no input on the bill whatsoever, they were not
privy to any of the discussions on the bill, they never voted for this
bill.
I do not believe personally that it is the role of Congress to
determine medical procedures. The doctor-patient relationship in this
country has been accepted as totally private. My dismay and disbelief
at the process in which this bill has been brought to the floor
overrides my concern, however, about Congress inserting itself into the
most private of decisions because we are saying not only are we
competent to make medical judgments but we are saying that the
Committee on Rules is the only competent body to make the decision,
more competent even than the Committee on the Judiciary, which has
jurisdiction over the issues, overstepping the bounds in which we have
always operated since the days of Thomas Jefferson.
Does congressional reform mean that from now on there is only going
to be a Committee on Rules? Are we going to completely override the
product of other committees, taking away the rights and
responsibilities that have always been the prerogatives of Members of
Congress? Is this the new civility? Does the majority really care about
this issue or does their mistaken belief that they will embarrass
President Clinton override their judgment?
{time} 1100
I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to reject this
rule that would permit debate on a bill that is not properly before us
and has bypassed every single part of the legislative process, and I
urge defeat of the previous question.
[[Page H1194]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule and
to address a concern that is deeply rooted in the conscience of every
Member in the House of Representatives and, I think, in the hearts of
almost every citizen of this great country.
For many, the debate over abortion is a deeply personal and emotional
issue. It is one that commands throughtful and sincere reflection and
frankly ought to be protected from politically charged debate. But
there is one area where I hope every person of conscience in this body
can agree, and that is that the right to choose must be available when
a woman's life is in danger for any reason and that a very personal
decision on that issue should be up to the woman, her doctor, her
family and her clergy.
This bill does not protect a woman, even when her life is in danger,
if her pregnancy goes forward. The changes made in the Committee on
Rules last night remove that assurance provided in the Committee on the
Judiciary markup. The other side tragically will not even allow a
discussion where that life protection can be debated, discussed, and
perhaps offered as an alternative.
All of us oppose late term abortions. All of us. But many of us
believe that an abortion should be allowed if the woman's life is in
danger. The Republican bill says a woman must carry her pregnancy to
term even if she could die doing so. We should have been able to
consider the bipartisan Hoyer-Greenwood bill that prohibits all late-
term abortions unless the life or severe health consequences of the
mother is at stake.
By not allowing this bipartisan bill to be offered, the motive of the
Republican leadership becomes apparent. They simply want to win. The
ability to use this issue politically is at stake. The truth is I
believe they have no interest in solving a problem by bringing this
country together because we could reach almost complete unanimity on
this issue in this body. I think their only motive is the 30-second
spots that are running now and will run again in 18 months.
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame and a sham.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to just really respond to the last comment
and say that this bill is coming to the floor today because forces on
both sides of this issue were pulling so hard in opposite directions
that they ultimately could not reach agreement on H.R. 929. It was
totally impossible for the Committee on Rules to reach a consensus with
all parties involved, so in the interests of fairness we decided to
bring up legislation that the House has considered in the past. In
fact, this is the same legislation that the President vetoed in the
104th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, it is not a sneak attack by the majority. It is merely
an attempt to bring forth legislation that had broad support in the
past so we can consider this extremely important bill; Members can cast
their votes with a clear conscience without the pressure tactics from
powerful groups on both sides of this divisive issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time to rise in strong support of this rule and this bill. This is a
fair rule which will allow the House to present to the President of the
United States the exact same bill he vetoed last year for his needed
consideration.
But let me speak to something else here because I am really disturbed
with the statement by the gentleman from California that just spoke as
well as the gentlewoman from New York. I hope she will be listening
here. I would like to address her remarks, if I might, and I am trying
to be very calm about this because she is a gentlewoman that I deeply
respect, but I am concerned with her remarks because, first of all, she
questioned the sincerity of Members on the other side of this issue,
and we could read back her remarks in which she said, ``questions of
sincerity.''
Mr. Speaker, I think that is beneath all of us. If she had put a name
to that statement, naming me or the gentlewoman from North Carolina
[Mrs. Myrick] or anyone else on this side of the aisle or some on their
side of the aisle, her words would have been taken down. We should keep
this on the highest plane that we can because we all are emotional
about this issue. I am, as the father of five children and the
grandfather of five, and so are people on their side from their
philosophical persuasion as well. So let us keep it elevated, my
colleagues. Let us not get into this.
Let me get into one other thing that the gentlewoman brought up
because she questioned the hypocrisy of us bringing before the Congress
a bill that had not been reported. Well, I would just remind the
gentlewoman and everybody on that side of the aisle that on March 19,
1992, when the gentlewoman was a member of the Committee on Rules
before she left and subsequently came back this past year, that our
Committee on Rules, under the leadership of the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] and the Democrat leadership, reported
special order waving all points of order against an unreported bill
under a closed rule. And do my colleagues have any idea what that was?
It dealt with the removal of limitations on the availability of funds
previously appropriated to the Resolution Trust Corporation when we
were arguing over the bailout of these S&L's. That was probably one of
the most important bills to come before the Congress that year, and it
came before the Congress as an unreported bill. They did the same thing
that I did in taking the bill that was on the President's desk last
year and dropping it in the hopper last night and then bringing it to
the Committee on Rules. That is exactly what we are doing here today.
And while we are at it, the gentlewoman spoke, and so did the
gentleman from California, about the life of the mother and the fact
that this was not contained in this bill before us today. Let me read
for my colleagues the paragraph on page 2, line 3.
Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,
knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human
fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2
years or both, and then the next sentence goes on to say, and it is
here in plain print for anybody to read: This paragraph shall not apply
to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of the
mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, by illness or
by injury.
That is in the bill, and true, the bill reported by the committee did
have additional language which was put in there just to clarify the
obvious that is here.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I came down because I was upset at the gentlewoman's
statement, not against it but what she was saying, because I am 100
percent pro-life; but I also want to support the life endangerment of
the mother, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is telling
me--because I was ready to vote against the bill. He is telling me it
is covered in this bill.
Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman can read it, and the sponsor of the bill
can tell the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, if I could get back now to settle down a little bit and
just to talk about the issue before us.
Do we as a body support or oppose a truly unconscionable, a truly
immoral procedure called partial-birth abortion?
As my colleagues know, when my wife and I were first married, the
husband did not go into the room and watch the birth of the baby. I am
sorry I did not back in those days, but my children, all of them, have,
and can you just picture this immoral, this inhumane procedure? If my
colleagues do, and if they had ever watched the birth of a baby, I am
sure that they would be voting for this bill here today. As my
colleagues know, for me it is just clear.
As my hero, Ronald Reagan, stated so well:
We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life,
the unborn, without diminishing the value of all human life.
There is no cause more important. And, my colleagues, think
about that.
[[Page H1195]]
In this spirit in the last Congress I joined with two-thirds of this
House, and that was a majority of Republicans and Democrats together,
two-thirds of this body, in making a clear and unequivocal statement
that this inhumane procedure, a partial-birth abortion, should be
banned in this country. The U.S. Senate concurred by also voting to ban
this same kind of procedure. Nevertheless, when the bill reached the
President's desk, it was vetoed. Although it was only one signature
away from becoming a law, that bill was rejected because of the
President's belief that partial-birth abortions occur only rarely and
only when necessary to save the life of the mother. That is what he
said in his veto message.
However, the Nation now knows that President Clinton's whole decision
was based on erroneous and incorrect information. This information was,
in fact, so wrong that one of the strongest supporters of partial-birth
abortion admitted publicly that he deliberately misled the American
people, Congress, and even the President into believing this was true;
and indeed on February 25, 1997, just past, Ron Fitzsimmons, the
executive director of the second largest abortion provider in the
country, admitted on Nightline, and go back and get it; we have got the
videotapes to show our colleagues--and admitted on Nightline, and later
to the New York Times, that he lied through his teeth. That is his
statement, not mine, that he said I lied through my teeth.
Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, partial-birth abortions do in fact
happen far more often than acknowledged and on healthy mothers bearing
healthy babies.
Today Congress is poised at the same moral crossroads where it found
itself during the last Congress. While Congress made the right decision
last year, the President, standing at those same crossroads, made an
immoral decision by vetoing that bill, and in light of these latest
revelations of the truth, the broad-based support of the American
people, and as Ronald Reagan called it, the most important cause there
is, we need to pass this bill again and give it to the President, give
him another chance to do the right thing, because the only reason he
vetoed it was because of the lies by Ron Fitzsimmons. Now he knows the
difference, he has a obligation now to sign this bill, and I would urge
everyone to come over here and vote for this rule, vote for the bill,
and let us save these decent human beings' lives.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that on March 7, the President said
that he was not persuaded at all by Mr. Fitzsimmons but had made his
decision on other matters.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms.
Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning as a
mother of two children age 11 and 17 and hoping that God will bless me
to have grandchildren in the future. I also rise this morning as a
member of the House Committee on the Judiciary and someone who
participated in the Committee on Rules hearing yesterday.
This is an issue of life and death, and I ask my colleagues, Do you
know that? It seems to be that even though I respect those who have a
difference of opinion, and I am gratified of the previous speaker's
acknowledgment that we must be civil, but this is nothing but a game,
late into the night another piece of legislation that none of us on the
Judiciary Committee got to see appeared, the same legislation that the
President had vetoed because it protects the health of the mother. This
bill does not care about the health of the mother. It does not care
about the opportunity for future fertility so that that family can have
another child. This is a wrongheaded bill.
And when we had the opportunity to be bipartisan with the Greenwood-
Hoyer bill, what happened to it? It fell by the wayside.
I ask my friends to be bipartisan and allow us to pass out a bill
that will speak to the American people and preserve the life of a
mother and the health of a mother. Vote down this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for H.R. Bill 1122, and
these are the reasons:
At day 22 of a pregnancy a baby's heart begins to beat with blood
often a different type than the mother's. At week 5, eyes, hands, and
feet begin to develop. At week 6, brain waves are detectable. Week 8,
all body systems are present, and bones begin to form. Week 9, the baby
is sucking his or her thumb, kicking and bending fingers. Week 11, the
baby can smile. And at week 17 the baby can have dream sleep.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a procedure that takes place at
weeks 20 to 24, a procedure where the child is turned around in the
womb and grabbed by the feet and the baby is killed, as has been
described before.
There has been another time when babies have been grabbed by the feet
and killed, and it happened in Cambodia outside of Phnom Penh, the
killing fields. At the edge of the killing fields is a tree that stands
there, stained with red right now, because those people, in the midst
of the genocide that was taking place there, took the babies by the
feet and beat their heads against the tree, and that tree is stained
with blood; it is red until its death as a symbol of the genocide and
the infanticide that took place in Phenom Penh at the hands of the
Khmer Rouge.
We are doing the same thing except just a matter of inches, a matter
of difference of time. We are doing the same thing. We are grabbing the
feet of the baby, and we are killing them, we are killing these people
who are living in the womb and are supposed to be a protected
environment.
Our Nation cannot withstand this assault. Our Nation's conscience
cannot withstand this assault. We must do something. We will pay for
this disobedience to the very reason for our creation.
{time} 1115
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Hall].
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for
yielding me this time.
I rise as an original cosponsor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act.
Abortion, except to save the mother's life, is wrong. However, this
particular procedure is doubly wrong. It requires a partial delivery,
and it involves pain to the baby.
Mr. Chairman, we will hear the medical details of these abortions
from others. I just want to lend my support to the bill as one who
tries to follow a moral code of common sense. A compassionate society
should not promote a procedure that is gruesome and inflicts pain on
the victim. We have humane methods of capital punishment, we have
humane treatment of prisoners; we even have laws to protect animals. It
seems to me we should have some standards for abortions as well.
Many years ago, surgery was performed on newborns with the thought
that they did not feel pain, and now we know they do feel pain.
According to Dr. Paul Ranalli, a neurologist at the University of
Toronto, at 20 weeks a human fetus is covered by pain receptors and has
1 billion nerve cells. Pain is inflicted to the fetus with this
procedure.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to discuss a bill relating to abortion
without saying that we have a deep moral obligation to improving the
quality of life for children after they are born. I could not stand
here and honestly debate this subject with a clear conscience if I and
my colleagues did not spend a good portion of our time on improving
hunger conditions and trying to help children and their families
achieve a just life after they are born.
On a final note, I want to express my serious concern about the rule.
Last night's action by the Committee on Rules on this bill was a
travesty of process. If there has ever been an issue that we ought to
be knocking out of the ball park, it is this one. To me, there is no
gray area on this issue. Enough is enough. If there is one thing this
Congress ought to do this year, it is to stop this very reprehensible
and gruesome technique of abortion. We treat dogs better than this.
I will vote for the rule. I do so reluctantly because of my strong
objections
[[Page H1196]]
to the process. However, my determination to ban this gruesome, immoral
process is stronger. Vote ``yes'' on the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
rule. This is a bill that I supported last year and I will probably
support it again this year, but I am deeply troubled by what the
Committee on Rules did.
The Committee on Rules said that a woman whose life is threatened by
the pregnancy itself should die. The original bill said we are not
going to do that; if my wife is going to die because of the pregnancy,
we are not going to let that happen. This bill says, let the woman die,
and that is wrong.
The Committee on Rules abused this process. We should go back to the
original language in this bill that was put in as it was introduced.
There is no woman in this country that should die because of the
pregnancy itself. This bill should be changed.
Every person in this room knows that there is not a woman in this
country that should die because her life is threatened by her
pregnancy. That is an outrage, and this bill originally recognized that
there was a problem with that. It originally realized that this is a
spot where this bill was vulnerable last year, so it corrected it. Now
they are back to playing politics.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged that the leadership of this
House has once again decided to play politics with women's lives. This
bill values abusive fathers more than women's lives. This bill, as
reported here, eliminated amendments made by the committee that would
have helped save some women.
Let me explain how this bill works. A woman becomes pregnant. While
she is pregnant, the father of the fetus rapes her. He then beats her
to a pulp. He throws her down the stairs, he batters her. He then
disappears from the scene and abandons her.
This woman, who is now severely traumatized, who is physically
injured by the battering, whose doctor tells her that because of her
injuries, carrying the pregnancy to term will probably result in
permanent, severe physical injury, perhaps permanent paralysis, for
life, decides to have an abortion. The doctor tells her the safest
method of abortion is the so-called, what some people call the partial-
birth abortion. It is the safest method. Other methods might kill her,
might increase the chance of paralysis, but this, he says, is the
safest method.
This bill says, First, she cannot have that abortion that way. If she
does, the doctor is criminally liable. The bill also says that the
father of the child, of the fetus, who raped her, who abused her, who
abandoned her, now can sue her and her doctor for damages. The abusive
father is entitled to damages. In fact, he is even entitled to money
for physical and emotional damages that he has suffered.
This is ludicrous. It is an outrage. It is disgusting. Not only does
this bill intrude, infringe, and violate the constitutional right to
choose, but it rewards abusive fathers. It rewards rapists.
The committee's amendment that would have said that a father who
beats the woman, who abuses her, who abandons her, cannot sue her for
damages, was eliminated in proceedings by the Committee on Rules. This
is shameful. I urge the House to reject this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it seems very clear to me
that we have people who would prefer an issue to a bill that could
become law. I offered an amendment in committee that would have
provided an exception to the ban in cases where it was necessary to use
this procedure to avoid serious adverse physical health consequences to
the mother.
Now, people on the other side have argued that health is too broad. I
do not agree with that. I find the health concept important. But I also
understand the health concept, including mental health, is most
directly relevant when we are talking about whether or not to have an
abortion.
This bill does not say you cannot have an abortion; it says you may
not use this particular procedure. Where we are talking about a ban on
a specific procedure, then physical issues become more prominent,
because the mental question generally is as to whether or not an
abortion is permitted.
Here is what the majority is insisting upon. A doctor believes he can
show that it is necessary under the wording of this bill to use this
procedure for a woman who has established her right to an abortion,
because otherwise there would be severe physical adverse health
consequences, and the majority says no. The majority says even if
avoiding this procedure will subject the woman to severe adverse
physical health consequences, as long as she is not going to die, but
if she is severely physically damaged, then they cannot use this
procedure. And the chairman of the full committee, with the
intellectual honesty he brings to the issue, said if it is a choice
between the woman incurring serious physical health damage and the life
of the fetus, then the woman's health must give way.
The chairman of the committee made that explicit when he opposed the
amendment, and that is the choice that the Members are not being
allowed to make. I am not being allowed to offer an amendment that
would have provided an exception to severe physical adverse health
consequences. I think that bespeaks an interest on the part of some in
an issue and not a law.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed
rule.
Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult issue. That is why I had hoped that
we could work with the GOP leadership to reach consensus on this
legislation. We have repeatedly tried to compromise with the Republican
leadership to write a bill that the President could support. As my
colleagues know, the President has said very clearly that he will sign
this legislation if it contains a narrow exception to protect those few
women who need this procedure to preserve their health. I personally
asked the leadership to work with us, to craft a narrow health
exception to the bill. They were unwilling.
The GOP leadership was also unwilling to allow a vote on the
bipartisan Hoyer-Greenwood substitute. That legislation would have
banned all late-term abortions, all late-term abortions, except those
performed to save the life or preserve the health of the pregnant
woman.
The President will veto the bill in its current form. He has made
that very clear. So rather than work with us to send the President a
bill that he will sign, the Republican leadership would rather pass
legislation that he will veto.
Let us be clear. This vote today is about the value of women's
health. The President said that he will not sign a bill unless it
protects women's health, and the GOP leadership will not go along. I am
sorry that the leadership chose to turn this sensitive matter into a
political issue. Unfortunately, it has become very clear that this
leadership does not want to ban this procedure, they want a political
issue.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this closed rule so that we can
include a health exception to the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose late-term abortions, but
I believe that when the mother's life or health are at risk, that
choice should be made by a woman and her physician and not by the
Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, what the American people do not know about this bill is
this: If we want to save babies, why does this bill just outlaw one
abortion procedure? The fact is, this bill still makes it legal to have
abortions at the end of the eighth or ninth month of pregnancy. What
the American people
[[Page H1197]]
do not know is that late last night the Committee on Rules refused to
even let this House vote on the bipartisan Greenwood-Hoyer bill that
would have outlawed all late-term abortion procedures, not just one
procedure.
I can respect those who support this bill, Mr. Speaker, but they
should be honest. There is no proof that this bill will save even one
baby. By outlawing one procedure and allowing others, you are not
saving babies, you are risking the health of mothers.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
(Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1130
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, today I rise as a father of 9 and a
grandfather of 30, in strong support of the partial-birth abortion ban
and the rule which allows this bill to come to the floor.
Today's debate is different from most abortion debates we see on the
floor each year. This debate is not about the viability of the fetus,
this debate is not when life begins. This is about the killing of an
infant.
The defenders of partial-birth abortion do not even try to deny that
we are talking about a viable human being. Instead, the defenders of
partial-birth abortion have always tried to defend it by saying it is
only used in cases of protecting the health and future fertility of the
woman or the mother. This claim is obviously not true. Former Surgeon
General C. Everett Koop, along with doctors from all over this country,
have stated that partial-birth abortions are never medically necessary
to protect the health or future fertility of the mother.
During the last month the truth regarding this procedure has finally
come to surface. The pro-abortion movement has developed a serious
credibility problem. Mr. Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the
National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted that he misled
Congress. The pro-abortion movement lied about partial-birth abortion.
The truth is that this barbaric procedure is not a rarity. Doctors are
performing thousands of partial-birth abortions each year. The majority
of them are being performed as elective procedures done on healthy
women carrying healthy babies. That is a tragedy.
It is time to put an end to this barbaric procedure. I ask my
colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 1122.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow the gentleman from
Kentucky. The Hoyer-Greenwood bill would have prevented any abortion,
not just by this procedure but by any procedure, I tell the gentleman
from Kentucky, on healthy women with healthy babies. This bill that the
gentleman is supporting will prevent not one abortion, not one. Why?
Because it deals with only one procedure.
There are other procedures, and I presume that the gentleman believes
those procedures are equally, in his terms, barbaric. If he does not, I
would yield for a question on that issue. But my assumption is he does.
So the issue here is whether they are going to allow in order Hoyer-
Greenwood.
The Republican Party, when it was in the minority, railed against the
Democrats for arbitrarily and arrogantly preventing amendments to
reflect different views. They said we wanted to prevent open and fair
debate.
Not only did the Committee on Rules last night prevent debate and
prevent other amendments, they also prevented even the work of their
own committee. They had the temerity to reject out of hand the
committee process. This group that came to reform the Congress in 1995
and talk about process, talk about fairness, talk about openness, this
rule is outrageous, America, because it does not allow the views of the
American public to be reflected on this floor and allow Members the
right to say, as I want to tell my constituents, and I presume many do
as well, I am against late-term abortion, period. Do I make exceptions?
Yes, I do.
I recently lost my wife on February 6. It was a painful experience.
We have three children. I could not do anything about the cancer that
gripped her body, but if I could have done something had she been
pregnant with one of our three girls and saved her life, by God, I
would have done it. If the doctor had told me, Judy will not be able to
have further children if we do not perform an abortion, I would have
said, as much as I love my three daughters, Doctor, save Judy's life
and our ability to have more children.
That is what this debate is about. The Committee on Rules has muzzled
us. We cannot address that issue. We address only one procedure.
Is it a procedure which we revile? It is. Is there a Member in this
House who will come to this floor and tell me there is another
procedure they believe is more humane, more fair, more acceptable?
If there is, have them come to the floor. I understand there is an
honest difference of opinion. The alternative procedures that can be
employed are not supported by many, by most, perhaps by all who will
vote for this bill. I understand that. I think that is a fair position.
But what, I say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is not
fair, what is deeply unfortunate in this Democratic body, is to not
give us the opportunity to have Members be able to express their views
by voting for or against alternative amendments.
Vote against this unfair, this unfortunate rule that has been
presented to us.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. McInnis].
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more unfair than using
this inhumane treatment on an unborn child, a living human being. Let
me quote, and I will include the article by Robert Novak in this
morning's Washington Post; he says, ``Hoyer's bill makes this
exception: `If in the medical judgment of the attending physician the
abortion is necessary to avert serious health consequences to the
woman,' '' and then it goes on to say that when Hoyer was asked March
12, what does that mean, and the question said, does it include mental
health, Mr. Hoyer said, ``Yes, it does.'' Hoyer then launched into a
discourse that indicated no psychosis is necessary, only what he calls
``psychological trauma.''
The article goes on to say, in short, any doctor could perform a
partial-birth abortion at his own inclination. That means there are no
detriments at all. Any partial-birth abortion could be allowed at any
time. That is why we want this bill to be only on the issue of partial-
birth abortion and not on the issue of abortion itself.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article referred to:
Clinton's Abortion Scam
(By Robert D. Novak)
Rep. Steny Hoyer, a nine-term Maryland Democrat who is
carrying President Clinton's abortion colors, was all too
honest in a Capitol Hill press conference March 12. He
revealed that his Clinton-blessed bill to supposedly ban
``late-term'' abortions provides no restriction at all. In
fact it is a world-class scam.
Public opinion, for once, is on the pro-life side when it
comes to ``partial-birth'' abortions, which remove the living
baby from the mother, as if in a birth, and suck out its
brains, often with the help of surgical scissors. The
Republican-sponsored Partial-Birth Abortion Act, to be voted
on by the House today, permits this only in very rare
instances where the life of the mother is endangered. But
Bill Clinton has promised to repeat his 1996 veto unless the
health of the mother is also protected.
Accordingly, Hoyer's bill makes this exception: ``if in the
medical judgment of the attending physician, the abortion is
necessary . . . to avert serious health consequences to the
woman.'' What, Hoyer was asked March 12, does that mean?
``We're not talking about a hangnail.'' Hoyer replied.
``We're not talking about a headache . . . Does it include
mental health? Yes, it does.'' Hoyer, than launched a
discourse that indicated no phychosis is necessary, only what
he called ``psychological trauma.'' In short, any doctor
could perform a partial-birth abortion at his own
inclination.
That's all there is to the ``dramatic shift'' by Clinton
feverishly heralded on the Boston Globe's front page March 7.
The newspaper disclosed a Clinton ``compromise'' would ban
late-term abortions, except for the mother's life and health
exemptions. That day at his press conference, the president
was fuzzy about what he supported. But on March 8, the Globe
reported that the White House said, ``Clinton's remarks
should be interpreted as an endorsement for a bill banning
third-trimester abortions.'' though there would be a ``a
very narrow exception for health reasons.''
[[Page H1198]]
But not so narrow, it turned out. Four days later, Hoyer
and Republican Rep. James Greenwood of Pennsylvania, ardent
abortion rights advocates, introduced the bill the Globe was
talking about. It would outlaw any abortion ``after the fetus
has become viable.'' The doctor on hand would be the one to
define viability (the earliest a baby can survive outside the
womb). So, the Hoyer-Greenwood bill really permits any
abortion any time an abortionist sees fit.
A formal presidential statement will endorse that bill,
Clinton aides say, if a vote on it is permitted today. On
Tuesday, Hoyer asked Rep. Henry Hyde, Judiciary Committee
chairman, whether the House could vote on his bill. ``Over my
dead body!'' Hyde, long a pro-life stalwart, cheerily
replied.
Hyde's obstinacy is justified by last year's comments from
pro-abortion activist Susan Cohen, referring to a close
Senate vote on a health-of-the-mother exception: ``We were
almost able to kill the bill.'' Hoyer-Greenwood is intended
to be a killer that would mean no bill at all.
Meanwhile, the president persists in fantasies in the face
of collapsing myths. Abortion clinic spokesman Ron
Fitzsimmons has admitted that he ``lied through my teeth''
last year when he ``spouted the party line'' that partial-
birth abortions are not routine. As I wrote last December,
the procedure is widespread and elective--used in the fifth
and sixth months of pregnancy because it is an easier, though
more grisly, way to abort the developed fetus.
In his March 8 press conference, Clinton insisted that,
contrary to all medical evidence, there are ``a few hundred
women'' a year who resort to this procedure so ``that they
could have further children.'' Why does he persist in this
untruth? ``Because he believes it,'' a senior White House
aide told me.
During the 1996 campaign, the president wrote leaders of
his own denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, that
when partial-birth abortion is used ``in situations where a
woman's serious health interests are not at risk, I do not
support such uses, I do not defend them and I would sign
appropriate legislation banning them.'' But that promise is
broken by his support of Steny Hoyer's killer substitute.
Clinton would be in political trouble if he violated a gun-
control pledge, but not where lives of the unborn are
concerned.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, let me say something to the gentleman from
Maryland. My wife faced exactly the same challenge. I want to make it
just as clear as he made it up here, there is never, ever the necessity
to abort partial-birth. That means the baby is partially born, to abort
that baby, to assist the mother in her challenge against cancer. That
is out of this class. It never faces them. There is never a medical
necessity to abort a baby 9 months after conception as the baby is all
but 1 inch of the delivery.
We would not do that to the worst criminal in this country. For
Members who support partial-birth abortion, would they tell me that
they would take the worst criminal in this country, they would take him
down for his execution, they would pierce his brain, skull, and suck
out his brains? Tell me you would do that. Tell me that you support
this.
In this country we have more regulations on rats and baboons than we
do for the protection of a baby that is partially born.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick].
(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the closed rule that is
before us this afternoon, and amazingly because it does not talk about
abortion, it does not stop one abortion, but stops a procedure that
trained professionals have been trained to make those decisions. It
takes that right away from them.
As a new person in Congress and having served 18 years in the
Michigan House of Representatives, I am appalled that such a rule would
come before this Congress where we would not be allowed to debate the
issue, where we would not be allowed to actually set forth our opinions
and then come to a final vote.
The proposed rule that is before us this afternoon is not fair, it is
not right, and it does not allow those who have been elected by our
constituencies across America to represent our views and to speak for
them.
I urge my colleagues, vote against this closed proposed rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, 7 days ago this little girl's mother
died of cancer. She was diagnosed with cancer 5\1/2\ months into the
pregnancy, but under this rule and under this bill, she could have
chosen to have aborted the baby. She could have chosen to take cancer
treatments. But this little girl's mother, Margie Janovich, said no,
life is too precious. Life is too important. I am not going to take the
life of my unborn child. I am not going to endanger it.
But even under this bill she could have chosen to go the route of an
abortion. I think it is wrong, but this bill allows that. This bill is
a fair bill. When we are talking about the physical health of the
mother, the life of the mother is in danger, this bill allows that.
But little Mary Beth Janovich is 18 months old today. Her mother is
in heaven. She made the ultimate sacrifice. She gave her life for her
child. Her other eight children besides Mary Beth look at their mother
and respect her mother, and know how much she loves them because she
gave her life for little Mary Beth.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
(Mr. WISE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Members what I support. Like
most people, I believe that late-term abortions should be outlawed
unless the mother's life is in danger or she would suffer serious
health problems by continuing the pregnancy. Yet I will not be
permitted today to vote on this. My language would stop far more late-
term abortions than what will be voted on today. But the leadership
will not let us debate this.
I oppose late-term abortions. I cosponsored legislation to outlaw
them. But most people believe that if a mother's life is in danger or
there is a serious health problem for the mother, then there should be
an exception. That is only common sense.
This Congress today votes on eliminating only a single medical
procedure, and it may stop a limited number of late-term abortions, yet
I support language that stops all late-term abortions, regardless of
medical procedure, unless the mother's life is in danger or she will
suffer serious health consequences.
Abortion is an agonizing decision and an agonizing debate. It
requires all views. Yet we are not going to be permitted today to vote
and to air these views. We will not be permitted to protect the mother
against serious health consequences. I oppose this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, why does the majority not want open debate
on this issue, which is literally a matter of life and death? Why have
they produced a rule with no amendments and required us to vote on only
the most extreme measure, which they know will not become law, because
the President has already said he will veto it? Why will they not let
us debate this, like we would in all American systems? That is what
this country is about.
But they do not want to do that, because this is not about late-term
abortion. This is about politics. This is about creating a political
issue that we can use in the next election to beat each other up with.
That is wrong. What we should be dealing with here is the issue. There
are many of us, a vast majority of the House, that agree with what 40
other States, 40 of the 50 States and the District of Columbia do in
limiting late-term abortions, except allowing for both the life of the
mother and the health of the mother.
We are not the AMA. We are not physicians. We are politicians. We
should rely on their expertise. But let us not play politics here. Let
us debate the issue. Let us debate it like America debates it, in open
and fair debate.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
{time} 1145
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
When I was thinking about running for Congress a few years ago, I
came to Washington and I met with the leaders
[[Page H1199]]
of my party. The leaders of my party said there are many things wrong
with the Democrats, but the thing that is perhaps the wrongest with
them is that they have changed the House of Representatives, designed
by our Founding Fathers to be the greatest deliberative body on Earth.
They have changed it into a place where debate cannot occur. They
closed the rules.
I said that I am going to run for Congress, and I am going to come to
Washington, and I am going to change that process so we can have real
debate in the House of Representatives again. And I did. I got here 4
years ago.
Yesterday I went to my Committee on Rules and I asked permission to
bring to this floor an idea. The idea is simple. It says there is
another way to look at this issue. The other way to look at this issue
is that it is not important, the issue is not how an abortion is
performed. The issue is when it is performed. I think there should not
be any late-term abortions, any late-term abortions. We do not want
abortions in the 7th month or the 8th month or the 9th month. That is
wrong. It is too late then. You had your choice. Unless your life is at
stake or the woman is seriously at risk of losing her health in a
serious way, critical way, and then that is her decision. That is the
decision for her and her mate and her priest to make. But I was denied
that, and that is wrong and that is why I am against this rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, once again this body has been given
the opportunity to draw a line against barbarism and brutality by
outlawing a form of infanticide known as partial-birth abortion. I will
not belabor the gruesome details.
All of us understand the mechanics of this horrendous procedure.
Despite the myths that were promulgated by the abortion industry, we
know that this procedure is designed to camouflage infanticide as a
therapy. We have all heard how Ron Fitzsimmons of the National
Coalition of Abortion Providers confessed to having lied to defend the
indefensible.
The fact that Fitzsimmons was misleading people was already known
last year. In a Wall Street Journal article, a number of doctors had
already refuted the myths last year that had been put forward about
this procedure. They pointed out that the defenders of this procedure
first claimed that the abortion practice did not exist. Then they
claimed that the child, yes the child, was already killed by
anesthesia. That also turned out to be false. The fact is that this
horror is real and that 80 percent of the time this brutal procedure is
elective.
While the goal of this legislation is to put an end to this
particularly horrifying procedure, I believe that the debate
surrounding this legislation has served to remind the American people
about the true nature of abortion, that a child is killed. It is the
sacred nature of each child's life that compels this legislation. We
take this step not only to blot out a particularly blatant horror but
to affirm the value of life, however helpless.
As with the case with partial-birth abortion, when the shocking
reality of abortion is made clear and the euphemisms are dispelled, the
pro-life position prevails. It is time to draw a line against such
child abuse and vote in favor of this bill and in favor of life.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the ban on partial-birth abortions
last year. I expect to do it again. But I am against this rule because
it prevents me from voting in a way that fully expresses my own
conscience.
My conscience tells me that this procedure ought to be prevented. But
it also tells me that in cases of serious, long-term physical health
damage--not temporary emotional or physical inconvenience--that the
choice ought to be made not by politicians but by the woman involved.
If there are not any cases where such a drastic choice exists, as is
suggested by those on the Republican side of the aisle, then there
would be no exceptions. So there would be no harm in allowing the House
to vote on the Frank amendment. I believe the problem with this rule is
that, among other things, it does not allow for a vote on the Frank
amendment and it should.
Some will say it is not right to trade a life for health, that a
woman who is in that situation should suffer long-term physical health
problems in order to preserve a life. I might very well agree with
that. I probably do theologically. But the fact is that what is being
missed here is that, even in that case, it is not my choice. Who
anointed me or you or any of us to make that choice in those
circumstances?
The essence of adulthood is that adults are supposed to be allowed to
make their own moral choices. That is what I was taught and that is
what I deeply believe. This rule is nothing but a gag rule. It ensures
that we will have to choose between the two political extremes on this
issue. It does not allow us to search common ground, and that is dead
wrong.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill to stop partial-birth
abortions and thank my colleagues who have worked so hard to bring this
measure to the floor to end this gruesome procedure. I am pro-life. But
regardless of one's position on the issue of abortion, whether they are
pro-life or otherwise, the partial-birth abortion procedure is too
inhuman to be sanctioned by any civilized society. In this procedure,
the abortionist reaches into the woman and forcefully turns the baby
around and delivers it, delivers the baby all the way to where almost
the entire body is delivered except for the head. The baby is then
stabbed in the back of the head, the brains are sucked out of the child
with a vacuum. The baby of course at this point is dead, and it is then
pulled out of the mother.
I have a hard time even saying this, it is one of the most disgusting
and stomach-turning things that I have ever heard in my life. But as
disgusting as this procedure is, what is perhaps even more disgusting
is the extreme position that are taken to defend it. In fact when this
issue was debated in the other body, one Senator concluded, when the
question was asked, that it would still be the decision of the mother
and the doctor to kill the child if the head accidentally slipped out
of the mother as the partial-birth abortion procedure was being
performed. That is outright killing of a child, and defenders of
abortion try to defend it as legal, medical practice.
But that is just one example of the extreme positions that are taken
to defend this horrible procedure. I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that
I hope this body will come to its senses and put an end to this
gruesome procedure known as partial-birth abortions.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
(Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition
to this rule. It is a sad day when on such an important matter,
important in conscience, important to women, that the Republican Party
would not allow a constructive amendment and open debate on some of the
gut-wrenching issues this deceivingly simple but dramatic bill raises
but fails to address.
I support banning this type of abortion and every other type of
abortion after viability, except when the life of the mother is
endangered or her health is seriously at risk. Forty States in America
have banned all late term abortions, including Connecticut. I support
Connecticut's law. No procedure or any other abortion, no procedure at
all to abort a viable fetus except to protect the life or health of the
mother.
That is the kind of amendment I wanted to propose so we could talk
about the real issues here: the rights of the mother, the life of the
mother, the health of the mother, not about the rights of the fetus.
No abortions after viability. That is what we should be talking
about. I urge opposition to the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
[[Page H1200]]
Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an
amendment making in order the amendments offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler],
which were approved by the Committee on the Judiciary, and also make in
order the Hoyer-Greenwood substitute. I strongly urge my colleagues to
defeat the previous question so that these worthy amendments can be put
in order.
This vote on whether or not to order the previous question is not
merely a procedural vote. It is a vote against the agenda and a vote to
allow the opposition at least for the moment to offer an alternative
plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
I urge, again, all my colleagues who are listening to me to
understand that we are not following normal House procedure here, that
another bill that had been defeated, that will be vetoed, has been
brought up in a new term simply as a matter of embarrassment. I know
that it may hurt, but it seems to me, in listening to the debate, that
the issue itself on late term abortions has taken second place to the
political question.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following:
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
if January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual:
``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule
because the majority Member controlling the time will not
yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same
result may be achieved by voting down the previous question
on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question
is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led
the opposition to ordering the previous question. That
Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an
amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of
amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on
a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
The vote on the previous question on a rule does have
substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
____
Previous Question to H.R. 100
On page 2, line 1, of House Resolution 100, strike ``(2)''
and insert ``(3)''
On page 2, line 1, of House Resolution 100, immediately
following ``Judiciary;'' insert the following:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, it
shall be in order to consider an amendment to be offered by
Representative Frank, which shall be debatable for 30
minutes, and shall be considered as read. The text of the
amendment is as follows: ``in Section 1531 (a) of H.R. 1122
after ``or injury'' insert ``or to avert serious adverse
longterm physical health consequences to the mother.''
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, it
shall be in order to consider an amendment to be offered by
Representative Nadler, which shall be debatable for 30
minutes, and shall be considered as read. The text of the
amendment is as follows: ``in Section 1531(c)(1) of H.R. 1122
at the appropriate place add the following: ``A father cannot
obtain relief under this subsection if the father abused or
abandoned the mother.''
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, it
shall be in order to consider an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to be offered by Representative Hoyer, or Rep.
Greenwood which shall be debatable for one hour, which shall
in order without intervention of any point of order or a
demand for a division of the question and shall be considered
as read. The text of the amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Late Term Abortion
Restriction Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN ABORTIONS.
(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful, in or affecting
interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly to perform an
abortion after the fetus has became viable.
(b) Exception.--This section does not prohibit any abortion
if, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, the
abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the woman or to
avert serious adverse health consequences to woman.
(c) Civil Penalty.--A physician who violates this section
shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000.
The civil penalty provided by this subsection is the
exclusive remedy for a violation of this section.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
A lot of different amendments have been mentioned here today, but I
would like to remind my colleagues that the veto override vote for this
text in this bill today was 286 Members in the House and 58 Members in
the Senate.
I would also like to remind my colleagues that the life of the mother
is protected in this bill. We are bringing this bill forward because it
speaks to the partial birth procedure alone. I urge my colleagues to
support the rule on H.R. 1122.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, we are set to vote on a rule for
a very important piece of legislation.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--pro-life and pro-
choice--to vote ``yes'' on the rule.
This rule is more important than most, Mr. Speaker. I'll explain why
in a moment.
We have a chance today, in light of new evidence on the subject, to
save unborn, late-term babies from a horrible death most people
wouldn't wish on an animal.
Let's remember what happens during this procedure: The baby, often as
old as 8 or 9 months, is partially delivered. Then killed by the
abortionist with surgical scissors.
For years, the proponents of abortion on demand have said that only
500 partial birth abortions were performed each year.
Only 2 weeks ago, the executive director of the National Coalition of
Abortion Providers admitted he's ``lied through his teeth'' when he
said the procedure was rarely used. He has admitted that pro-life
groups are accurate when saying the procedure is more common, and
almost always performed on a healthy mother.
When President Clinton vetoed the partial-birth abortion ban we
passed last year, one reason he cited was that we didn't include an
exception to protect the health of the mother.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, U.S. abortion law defines health to
include emotional, psychological, familial, and even the mother's age
as factors.
Indeed, as even the defenders of this practice must admit, these are
often the reasons this brutal procedure is used.
That's why I urge members to vote ``yes'' on the rule.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my
opposition to the closed rule on H.R. 1122 that is before us. There is
a great deal of emotion surrounding the debate on H.R. 1122. While I
may not agree with some of my colleagues views on this issue, I respect
that those views are both thoughtful and deeply held. I believe that
the strength of our democracy lies in the fact that we open the door to
all voices and all opinions--both those that we disagree with and those
that we do not.
It is for this reason that I am compelled to speak. I am distressed
that this rule does not respect or acknowledge the divergence in our
views. I do not ask my colleagues to agree with me on the issue of
abortion, or to vote with me, but I do ask that they allow me the
opportunity to cast a vote that reflects my views.
In addition, as a member of the Judiciary Committee I am disturbed to
see the legislative process so manipulated. At the markup of H.R. 929,
the predecessor to today's bill, the
[[Page H1201]]
Judiciary Committee engaged in extensive, probing debate on the issue
of the partial birth abortion ban. While I was not in support of the
committee report that emerged from this markup, I respected the fact
that it resulted from the legitimate course of the legislative process.
That process has now been subverted.
H.R. 1122, the bill that is before us today, is not the bill that
came before the Judiciary Committee last week. It is not the bill that
went to the Rules Committee last night. It is an even more narrow and
restrictive interference with a mother's privacy, her health, and her
life. Further the amendments I proposed to protect the health of the
mother and to clarify that a woman would not be civilly liable if she
sadly had to have this procedure were rejected. Finally, the Greenwood-
Hoyer bipartisan response to protecting the life and health of the
mother, although raised in the Rules by myself and others was rejected
without reason.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barton of Texas). The question is on
ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. MYRICK. 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.
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair announces that he may
reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time within which a vote by
electronic device, if ordered, may be taken on agreeing to the
resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 184, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 61]
YEAS--243
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
NAYS--184
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klug
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--5
Brown (CA)
Kaptur
Lewis (CA)
Oxley
Young (FL)
{time} 1214
Mr. GREENWOOD changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. SKELTON and Mr. EHLERS changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barton of Texas). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247,
noes 175, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 62]
AYES--247
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
[[Page H1202]]
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--175
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Klug
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--10
Bono
Burton
Callahan
Hilleary
Kaptur
McIntosh
Oxley
Smith, Linda
Torres
Waxman
{time} 1223
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________