[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.

                          ____________________