[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8640-H8663]
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 262 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 262

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     1122) to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-
     birth abortions, with Senate amendments thereto, and to 
     consider in the House a single motion that the House concur 
     in each of the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments and 
     the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. 
Myrick] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 is yielded for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, the Committee on Rules met to grant 
a rule that provides for a motion to concur to the Senate amendments to 
H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997 in the House. It 
is a simple rule that provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Supporting this rule and the motion to agree to the Senate amendments 
will allow us to complete the long legislative process on this bill. 
H.R. 1122 would then be ready to be sent to the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue, where the President will again have the 
opportunity to end the cruel procedure known as partial-birth abortion.
  During the Committee on Rules hearing yesterday, we heard impassioned 
pleas to make two amendments in order, one by the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Lowey] and one by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. 
Neither of those amendments were ruled in order.
  I respect their heartfelt sentiments on this emotional issue. But I 
would like to point out that if we went through the normal legislative 
process, going to conference with the other body and working out our 
differences, the subsequent conference report would not be amendable 
either.
  It may be alleged that the majority on the Committee on Rules is 
trying to cut off debate on this issue. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. We are merely trying to complete this legislative process in 
a timely manner.
  The two proposed amendments have not gone through the normal process. 
They have both expanded the scope of the bill and contain language that 
should be carefully deliberated by my colleagues so that we are all 
completely sure what they mean.

                              {time}  1045

  With respect to H.R. 1122 and the Senate amendments, the two 
substitute amendments offered by the minority are irrelevant. The 
amendments would ban third-trimester abortion except to save the 
mother's life or health.
  While that may sound perfectly reasonable, the vast majority of 
partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth month of 
pregnancy, not the third trimester. Further, the health exemption would 
effectively permit all abortions. The Supreme Court interprets health 
abortions so broadly as to include all those related to social, 
psychological, financial, or emotional concerns. I realize that the 
Hoyer amendment defined health in another manner.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], chairman of the Subcommittee 
on the Constitution, provided testimony that indicated that there was 
still a great deal of latitude given to abortionists to determine if 
the health exemption applied.
  Despite all the attention that will be given to what is not on the 
floor today, I would now like to focus on what is going to be on the 
floor today, a ban on the brutal procedure known as partial-birth 
abortion, with protection for the life of the mother, and let me be 
perfectly clear that if her life is in jeopardy, the ban does not 
apply, and fines and possible prison terms for physicians who violate 
the ban and perform this atrocity.
  This resolution will allow us to vote on accepting three acceptable, 
simple Senate amendments which delete some

[[Page H8641]]

language in the life exception. The bill still bans partial-birth 
abortion unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother, 
clarifies the definition of partial-birth abortion, and allows a 
physician to present evidence in court from the State medical licensing 
authority on whether the partial-birth abortion was necessary to save 
the life of the mother.
  There is little debate about the brutality of this procedure. In 
fact, the gruesome and violent partial-birth abortions are 
unconscionable. It has been confirmed that thousands of these 
procedures are performed every year. Many of those are elective and 
performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies. More than 80 percent 
of the American people and the American Medical Association support 
banning this practice. We live in a civilized society, one that cannot 
consciously condone or tolerate such inhumane and uncivilized 
procedures.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and the Senate 
amendments to H.R. 1122. It is time we complete our work on this 
important bill, and take a step closer to banning this most monstrous 
type of abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. This rule 
would allow the Congress to take up once again one of the most shameful 
bills that has ever come before this Chamber. In their war against a 
woman's right to choose, antichoice forces have shown that they are 
willing to sacrifice a woman's health and her future fertility to 
pursue the extreme agenda by passing H.R. 1122.
  The House will be asked today to adopt the Senate amendments to H.R. 
1122. These amendments consist of three minor changes that were made in 
order to secure the controversial endorsement of the American Medical 
Association.
  These changes do not alter the substance of the bill, which seeks for 
the first time ever, ever, Mr. Speaker, to make a specific medical 
procedure a Federal crime. Rather, these changes provide further 
protection for doctors who may face prosecution under this proposal if 
it becomes law. Evidently, antichoice advocates are more interested in 
protecting a doctor's license than a woman's health.
  I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to part of a letter I 
received from a Texas women's health clinic. It states:

       Please do not make the mistake of thinking that the AMA 
     speaks for all physicians on this issue. It does not speak 
     for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 
     the doctors most intimately concerned with women's 
     reproductive health; it does not speak for the 13,000 members 
     of the American Women's Medical Association; and it does not 
     speak for us, doctors who provide abortions to the women who 
     need them.

  Less than a year ago the President 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. This bill fails that test once more.
  It is not the role of Congress to determine the appropriateness of 
medical procedures. The doctor-patient relationship has been accepted 
as totally private in this country. Congress is inserting itself into 
the most private of decisions, and saying that we are more competent 
than our women and their doctors to make medical judgments.
  As one of the few Members of Congress with a background in public 
health, I can tell the Members this most assuredly is not the case. I 
would like to read from a letter dated October 3 from the American 
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
  They state:

       This organization, representing 38,000 physicians dedicated 
     to improving women's health, continues to oppose the Partial-
     Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, and urges the House of 
     Representatives to reject this legislation.

  These physicians believe that H.R. 1122, as amended, continues to 
represent an inappropriate, ill-advised, and dangerous intervention 
into a medical decision.
  The amended bill still fails to include an exception for the 
protection of the health of the woman. Further, the amended bill still 
violates a fundamental principle at the very heart of the doctor-
patient relationship: that the doctor, in consultation with the 
patient, based on what the patient's individual circumstances are, must 
choose the most appropriate method of care for the patient.
  This bill removes decisionmaking about medical appropriateness from 
the physician and from the patient. This bill is vague and broad. With 
the potential to restrict other techniques in obstetrics and 
gynecology, it fails to use recognized medical terminology and fails to 
define explicitly the prohibited medical techniques it criminalizes. 
Moreover, the ban applies to all stages of pregnancy. It thus would 
have a chilling effect on medical behavior and decisionmaking with a 
potential to outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and 
health of American women.
  Let us defeat this rule and defeat the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I intend to offer an amendment that 
would make in order the Hoyer amendment, which was the same language 
offered by Senator Daschle during Senate consideration. It would ban 
all postviability abortions except where continuation of the pregnancy 
would endanger the life of the mother or risk grievous injury to her 
health.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, to defeat the 
previous question, and also to get rid of those Senate amendments to 
H.R. 1122.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], our illustrious chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding 
time to me, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I would rise in support of this rule and the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban Act. I would just take exception to the statement of 
the gentlewoman from Rochester, NY, that this is the most shameful bill 
ever brought to this floor. I think what is shameful is the fact that 
these heinous procedures are allowed against about-to-be-born helpless 
children. For us to delay even another hour would be, in itself, 
shameful.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider a motion to 
agree with the Senate amendments, and this is the right procedure to 
use in this case because if the Senate-passed version is changed in any 
way, in other words, the legislation has to go back to the Senate for 
further action, and if that happens, that means that the window of 
opportunity for laying this bill on the desk of the President just will 
not happen this year.
  Is it right to delay this bill? Some say, why can we not do it in 
January or February? I would just pose the question, how many partial-
birth abortions would take place across this country between now and 
next January, February, or March? Given that our colleagues in the 
other body have no germaneness rules, who knows what could be hooked 
onto this legislation and just how long it could be tied up.
  As we get into this debate, I want to provide just a little of the 
history of this legislation. In the last Congress, a similar bill was 
passed by both the House and Senate. After President Clinton vetoed the 
bill, the House voted to override the veto by a vote of 285 to 137, 
overwhelming. The Senate fell short of the two-thirds vote necessary to 
override the veto, with a vote of 58 to 40. In this Congress, the House 
passed this bill by an even wider margin of 295 to 136, which is more 
than sufficient to override the veto, far more.
  On May 20 the Senate passed the bill with amendments by a vote of 64 
to 36, again, widening that margin of support, just three votes short 
of the two-thirds necessary to override the veto. We are getting very 
close to crossing the goal line with this bill. I firmly believe we are 
going to make it.
  The issue presented by this legislation is absolutely crystal clear: 
do we support or do we oppose the procedure called partial-birth 
abortion. For me, that answer is without doubt. 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

[[Page H8642]]

life. There is no cause more important, said Ronald Reagan.
  With regard to this legislation, there are at least two things that 
are different in this Congress from the last Congress, which gives both 
pro-choice advocates and pro-life advocates, who oppose this heinous 
procedure, which gives us hope that we are going to make it this time.
  In the last Congress, when the President vetoed the bill, he 
justified that veto by contending that partial-birth abortions occur 
only rarely, and only when necessary to save the life of the mother. 
That is what the President said. That was his reason for vetoing the 
legislation.
  It has since become clear that much of the information which the 
President relied on in reaching that conclusion was erroneous. The 
information was so wrong that one of the strongest supporters of 
partial-birth abortion admitted publicly that he deliberately misled 
the American people, he deliberately misled this Congress, and he 
deliberately misled the President of the United States in making that 
statement on which he vetoed the bill.
  On February 25 of this year Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director 
of the second largest abortion provider in the Nation, admitted, and 
many Members saw this, and if not, I will recall it to them, admitted 
on Nightline, and later in the New York Times, and we have the 
publication of the New York Times, that he lied through his teeth, he 
lied through his teeth, about this terrible procedure. Partial-birth 
abortions do in fact happen far more often than previously 
acknowledged, and on healthy mothers bearing healthy babies. That is 
what he said.
  There is a second thing that is different in this Congress from the 
last Congress. That is, the number of votes against partial-birth 
abortions has increased in both the House and Senate, which I have just 
outlined. This legislation is picking up momentum.
  In order to build on that momentum, I would ask Members, whether they 
are pro-life or pro-choice, because we all gather together on this 
important issue, to support the rule and support the Partial-Birth 
Abortion Ban Act.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, a very respected 
Member on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's thoughtful 
statement, and I am well aware of his strong feelings on this. But I 
want to pursue, if I might, just a couple of questions, because of the 
difficulty of this.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would let me reclaim my 
time, we are pressed with the time that we are allocating. If the 
gentleman would like to get his time, I will stay here and answer any 
questions, even though I have to go to the Committee on Rules in a few 
minutes. So I must reclaim, and ask the gentleman to get his time. I 
will be glad to speak to the gentleman.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I 
have great respect for Members of Congress who are genuinely pro-life. 
Some even believe if a woman is the victim of incest or rape, the 
Federal Government should prevent her from terminating the pregnancy. 
While I strongly disagree with that opinion, I can respect those who 
honestly believe it. But what I cannot respect is a bill that is 
designed for sound bites, not saving babies.
  We all know this bill will pass today. Why? Because it is designed 
for maximum impact in 8-second sound bites and 30-second attack ads.

                              {time}  1100

  If we want to save babies, we do not outlaw one type of abortion 
procedure and allow all other types of late-term abortion procedures to 
be perfectly legal. That is why this bill might be good politics, but 
it will not save one baby.
  If someone wants a late-term abortion under this bill, their doctor 
can just use a procedure not outlawed by the bill. As someone who 
helped pass, as a Texas Senator, a ban on late-term abortions in Texas 
in 1987, I think it is tragic that the supporters of this bill would 
not even allow us to offer an amendment similar to the Texas law, an 
amendment that would have outlawed all late-term abortion procedures, 
not just one procedure, and providing an exemption in rare cases where 
the mother's life or health are endangered. Denying us that amendment 
might have been good politics, but it is terrible policy.
  The consequences of that political decision are real. First, now, 
today, we have a bill that will not prohibit all late-term abortion 
procedures, so no babies will be saved.
  Second, the bill will be vetoed by the President, and is 
unconstitutional, because it has no health exception and limits women's 
choices in the second trimester, even before viability. Federal judges 
have already stopped such similar bills in 10 States across this 
Nation.
  Third, women in tragic, tragic cases where their fetus has zero 
chance of survival, zero chance, will be forced by the Federal 
Government and politicians to go through a procedure that can endanger 
her health and stop her from ever having babies again.
  I may be in the minority vote today, Mr. Speaker, but I, for one, am 
not willing to sacrifice one woman's fertility, one woman's chance to 
have the joy of having a baby in order to pass a sound bite bill that 
is unconstitutional. That is simply a price that no woman in America 
should have to pay for my political convenience or anyone else's.
  Mr. Speaker, while I can respect genuine pro-life, I will not sit by 
silently and let some proponents of this bill suggest that those of us 
who oppose this bill support taking a healthy baby, just moments before 
a normal childbirth, and crushing the baby's skull. That is deceitful, 
it is dishonest, and it is wrong. It is not true, and they know it.
  I strongly oppose late-term abortions. If there is one done for 
frivolous reasons, it should be illegal, but when a woman's health is 
in danger, I, like many Americans, believe that difficult choice should 
not be made by politicians in Washington, DC, but by a woman, her 
family, and her doctor.
  Mr. Speaker, the reality is this: We could have passed 2 years ago, 2 
years ago, the bill that pro-lifers supported in Texas as far back as 
1987. That law would be saving babies today. Instead, because of the 
proponents' approach, their political approach, we have no Federal law. 
We could pass that Texas bill on this House floor today. The President 
would sign it tomorrow, and it could save babies the day after that. 
But sadly, this Committee on Rules has chosen not to even give us 
Members of the House the right to cast that vote of conscience and 
belief. That is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, the real tragedy is that to some, the politics of this 
bill has become more important than saving babies.
  I believe it is time to save babies' lives, not sound bites. That is 
why I hope the President will once again have the courage to veto this 
bill, so that we can finally work together to pass a bill that will 
save babies rather than political careers.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, regardless of my colleagues' position on this 
difficult emotional issue, if Members of Congress believe that we 
should all have the right to express a vote of deep conscience and 
conviction, then my colleagues should oppose this unfair closed rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time. I want to express my gratitude to the Committee 
on Rules for bringing forward this rule.
  Comments have been made about whether the proponents of this bill are 
doing what they can to reduce abortions. It has been suggested that 
another proposal which has been advanced by the President would 
actually be more effective in dealing with reducing abortions. I will 
leave it to the candid judgment of the people of this country whether 
it is the supporters or the opponents of this bill who are interested 
in reducing the number of abortions performed in America. I think the 
record of those who are supporting this bill speaks pretty clearly on 
that subject.

[[Page H8643]]

  It has been contended that partial-birth abortion is, in some cases, 
necessary to protect the health of the mother. That is simply untrue. 
Partial-birth abortion is never necessary to protect the health of a 
woman. Hundreds of obstetricians and gynecologists and maternal fetal 
specialists have come forward to unequivocally state that partial-birth 
abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or 
her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a 
significant threat to both.
  The American Medical Association, which is on record in support of 
abortion rights, supports banning partial-birth abortion because it is 
not necessary and it is, and I quote, not good medicine.
  Furthermore, in an American Medical News article, Dr. Warren Hern, a 
late-term abortionist, disputed the safety of partial-birth abortion. I 
want to quote directly from this article. It says even some in the 
abortion-provider community find the partial-birth abortion procedure 
difficult to defend. ``I have very serious reservations about this 
procedure,'' said Colorado physician Warren Hern, M.D.
  The author of ``Abortion Practice,'' the Nation's most widely-used 
textbook on abortion standards and procedures, Dr. Hern specializes in 
late-term procedures. He opposes the bill, he said, because he thinks 
Congress has no business dabbling in the practice of medicine. But of 
the procedure in question, he says, ``You really can't defend it. I'm 
not going to tell somebody else that they should not do this procedure. 
But I'm not going to do it.''
  Dr. Hern's concerns center on claims that the procedure in late-term 
pregnancy can be safest for a pregnant woman and without this 
procedure, women would have died. ``I would dispute any statement that 
this is the safest procedure to use,'' he said.
  Turning the fetus to a breech position is potentially dangerous, he 
added. ``You have to be concerned about causing amniotic fluid embolism 
or placental abruption if you do that.''
  Pamela Smith, M.D., director of medical education, Department of Ob-
Gyn at Mount Sinai Hospital in Chicago, added two more concerns: 
cervical incompetence in subsequent pregnancies caused by 3 days of 
forceful dilation of the cervix and uterine rupture caused by rotating 
the fetus within the womb.
  Partial-birth abortion is used by some abortionists for their own 
convenience. It is never necessary to partially deliver a live child 
and jam scissors into the back of that child's head to preserve a 
mother's health. Think about it. Look at what they do. How is partially 
delivering the child, jamming scissors in the child's head, in any way 
calculated to protect the health of the mother? If the pregnancy must 
be terminated because of the health of the mother, if the child must be 
delivered, the child can be delivered without stabbing the child in the 
back of the head.
  This is an argument that has absolutely no merit. It is an argument 
that is being advanced in defense of a procedure that simply cannot be 
defended.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the women who undergo this late-term 
abortion procedure do so, they do so when they are left with no other 
choice. Often, this procedure is the only one which will save the life 
of the mother and preserve her fertility so that one day, in fact, she 
can have the chance to have another healthy child.
  I received a letter from one of my constituents who underwent this 
procedure. The child that she was carrying was the victim of a 
chromosomal abnormality so rare that it does not even have a name. Her 
child was missing genetic information, was missing internal organs, and 
her digestive system was in difficulty.
  After meeting with her rabbi, with a genetics counselor, talking with 
her doctor and with her family, my constituent decided to have this 
procedure because her doctor told her that it would preserve her 
ability to have another child.
  She is now the proud mother of a young girl, realizing, fulfilling 
the dreams of herself and her family to be able to have a baby. She 
deeply mourns the child that she lost, but she is grateful that she had 
the chance to have that baby girl, a chance that she would not have had 
if she had been forced to carry that pregnancy to term.
  This bill would have taken that decision out of the constituent's 
hands and out of the hands of her doctors, and yes, there are many, 
many doctors who believe that what my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle are trying to do is to take the decision out of the hands of 
the doctors.
  This is the most painful decision that any woman, any family will 
ever have to make. Families deserve to make it for themselves, and that 
is why I oppose this bill and this rule.
  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle truly wanted to ban 
this procedure, they would have made in order a Democratic alternative 
that would have included an exemption in the cases when the health of 
the mother is at risk. They refuse to deal with the issue of the health 
of the mother. The President has said that he will veto any bill that 
does not include a health exemption, and indeed, he has already vetoed 
a virtually identical bill.
  Instead, what they do is they insist on playing partisan politics 
with women. We are not going to stand for it. The President is not 
going to stand for it, and my friends, the women of America are not 
going to stand for it. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to 
oppose this bill.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, what we just heard was a very unfortunate 
story, but the most unfortunate thing about the story is the woman was 
lied to by her physician, for in fact there is never a medical reason 
to care for any anomaly associated with pregnancy in this way.
  This debate is not going to be centered around truth. It has not 
been. There is never an indication to use this procedure to save the 
life of a woman. And if, in fact, that were not true, the bill still 
protects for that. So it is a specious argument to say that partial-
birth abortion is required to save the life of a woman. It is just 
absolutely untrue.
  Now, why would I say that? I have cared for every imaginable type of 
anatomic, genetic defect in the over 3,200 babies that I have cared 
for, let alone the other 1,000 or so pregnancies that did not come to 
fruition. Why? Why do we have the partial-birth abortion? We have the 
partial-birth abortion as a convenience to abortionists.
  Now, it makes good rhetoric to say that this saves the life of a 
woman; it makes good rhetoric to say that this is the only way we can 
in fact allow that choice for that woman in a very unfortunate 
situation, but it is not medically true, it is not scientifically true. 
But it philosophically supports the idea that no matter what we want, 
if we want to terminate a life at any time, for any reason, for any 
cause, then we ought to do this.
  The argument ought to be on the basis of what people think, and if 
one really believes that, then one ought to stand up and say that. Some 
80 percent of the babies that have been aborted this way were 
absolutely normal, nothing wrong with them. Look at Bergen County, NJ. 
Look at the data. It is truly representative of what goes across this 
country, it is truly representative of what happens in the reproductive 
field in this country. It is OK if in fact one believes that one ought 
to be able to terminate a life at any time, for any reason, in any way, 
but stand up and say that. Do not distort what the medical information 
is.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I understand what the gentleman is saying. 
His representation is that the doctor did not tell the patient the 
truth.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, absolutely.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, in 
the instance if one accepts the premise that the condition existed, I 
would ask the gentleman what alternative would he have recommended.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, easy. The doctor

[[Page H8644]]

would do the same thing in terms of preparing, if the life need to be 
terminated for the life of the woman, which in fact in this case I do 
not know the details, I cannot say.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman to accept that as a 
premise.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
accepting that as a premise, that in fact if the life of the woman was 
in danger, could it have been done? Easy. It is called prostaglandin 
induction, and without putting the woman at risk.
  The other false statement is that this procedure is known to put the 
woman's fertility at risk, not ensure her future fertility. Every major 
obstetrical textbook says doctors should not forcefully dilate the 
cervix. This procedure forcefully dilates the cervix.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
did not get the term. What would have been the result?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, spontaneous 
abortion that would have occurred without a puncture vacuum evacuation 
of the cranium.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would again yield, and the 
fetus or the child would not have survived?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not know, and the 
gentleman does not know. Many times babies have been born in my care 
that would not survive. We chose not to make the decision on what their 
survival would be. Physicians are not that accurate in terms of life 
and death. We obviously are human, and we make those mistakes.
  My point is, this woman, if in fact she needed to be evacuated, could 
be evacuated in many ways other than this method.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would again yield, I would 
ask the doctor, I am correct then that eliminating this prior would not 
necessarily eliminate the abortion?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it would not. The 
gentleman is correct.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if I may add for just a moment to what the doctor has 
said, if the doctor does not know, how does he expect Members of 
Congress to make this decision? Why should we be doing that?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of knowing life or death; 
it is a matter of knowing techniques that are used. There is a very big 
difference in saying that we can use a procedure that is a convenience 
to the abortionist that is heinous, that is totally cruel and inhumane, 
versus the methods that are available that are not.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask the 
gentleman whether it bothers him at all as a physician that the 
Congress of the United States is outlawing for the first time and 
making a Federal crime a medical procedure?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, 
this is not a medical procedure in my estimation. This is murder. This 
has nothing to do with medicine. It has to do with murder at the 
convenience of the abortionist.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am saddened beyond 
measure every time we debate this issue. Every one of us who has been 
brought up by a woman that we consider brilliant and wonderful suddenly 
decides here that the women in the country do not have any sense at all 
and, if this Congress did not act, they might do something really 
dreadful.
  Well, for all of my colleagues who have never had the honor of 
carrying a baby, let me say it does not work that way. Women who 
undergo this procedure want these babies desperately. The fact that at 
almost the point of birth they find that they cannot carry that baby to 
term is heartbreaking for them.
  Mr. Speaker, I pray that none of my colleagues, and none of their 
family members, ever have to reach that decision. But for heavens sake, 
I do not believe it is the province of the House of Representatives to 
determine whether or not that woman can get that procedure. In fact, I 
would wager to my colleagues, if that decision were to be made, a woman 
and her family facing that and this procedure was outlawed, I do not 
believe that the doctor would stop it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, there truly is no rest for the weary. And I 
tell my colleagues, the women of this country are weary. They are just 
plain tired of the constant stream of attacks launched by the 
Republican leadership in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, today's assault on women is especially dangerous. It is 
dangerous because it puts women's health at risk.
  I rise in opposition to this rule today because it does not allow an 
amendment to safeguard the health of women in this country. The health 
of women should be what this bill is about, Mr. Speaker. Instead, this 
bill makes complicated medical pronouncements while ignoring the health 
of women, those who are most affected.
  That is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 
the American Nurses Association, and the American Medical Women's 
Association all strongly oppose this legislation. These groups oppose 
the bill, Mr. Speaker, because it will hurt women, plain and simple, 
hurt women.
  Mr. Speaker, it continues to amaze me that Members of this House have 
so little faith in women, the very people who bear and raise the 
children of this country, so little faith that they would deny them 
access to the lifesaving procedures out of some ridiculous notion that 
pregnant women do not care about their children, that they wait until 
the last moment to abort a pregnancy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, put women ahead of politics. I 
urge my colleagues, defeat the previous question. I urge my colleagues 
to let the decisions be made between the women and their doctors.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the body that the 
testimony before Congress is that over 80 percent of these that are 
performed were elective. That is the testimony before the committees of 
this Congress.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Coburn], in that testimony, was the testimony as to at what stage that 
was done?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, it was across the stage, most of them more 
than viable, greater than 22\1/2\ weeks.
  Mr. HOYER. Postviability?
  Mr. COBURN. Postviability.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Slaughter] for her courage and leadership in defending women of 
America, their lives and their safety.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the amended version of 
H.R. 1122. This bill, in its original form and as amended, puts at 
great risk women's health and future fertility. The bill provides no 
exception to protect a woman's health. It would prevent a qualified 
doctor from using a medical procedure that could be the most medically 
appropriate one to save the life and health of a woman.
  This House of Representatives lacks the extensive medical 
qualifications needed to determine what is in the best interest of the 
patient. Why are we in the House of Representatives now choosing and 
deciding about medical procedures? It is ridiculous.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill forces qualified physicians to make a choice 
between their best medical judgment and a prison sentence. Doctors 
should not have to fear criminal prosecution for providing what they 
have determined to be the most compassionate care possible for a woman 
in an excruciating circumstance, and that circumstance is

[[Page H8645]]

that the baby is not viable, that the baby is lost, that people who 
have been joyfully expecting a new baby have to face the terrible 
reality that the baby is not going to survive. This is just the most 
helpful way in terms of the woman to proceed, if the doctor, the woman, 
and her family decide to go this way.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect the health of the woman 
and vote against this legislation which is both unconstitutional and 
inappropriate.
  Let me say that I understand how difficult this issue is for all of 
us. It is not easy to have this kind of discussion. But I believe that 
this is not an issue that rests with Congress. This legislation 
destroys the family's right to face a devastating circumstance with 
safety and dignity.
  The President will not sign a bill that threatens this right. This 
decision is appropriately made by the woman. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no''.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] that the American Medical Association has not 
recognized this procedure as a medically necessary procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support today of this rule on H.R. 
1122, which will ban this partial-birth procedure.
  Each day we have an opportunity to craft legislation in this Chamber 
that is going to affect the lives of men and women and children all 
across this Nation. Today is no different. But today we have an 
opportunity also to restore some morality to this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the decision that we are faced with, 
after hearing the graphic illustrations, after listening to the 
testimony, after listening to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] 
having delivered 2,200 babies, state that this is not a necessary 
medical procedure; listening to former people who were in charge of 
this issue who used to be pro-abortion who have now voted in favor of 
outlawing this procedure. The testimony is clear. The evidence is 
direct. There should be no divisiveness on this issue.
  Protecting the life of unborn children after viability should not be 
an issue. As a Nation, as a family, we should come together on this 
issue. We should come to agree on this issue. Postviability abortion is 
wrong. Partial-birth abortions are wrong. Killing the unborn baby is 
wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not about the life of the mother. We have 
already heard from the testimony of Dr. Coburn and other people that 
there are other ways and other procedures and other things that can be 
done. Taking the life of an unborn child once viability is proven is 
clear-cut murder. It is wrong. We should not allow it.
  We must come together as a body, we must come together as a Nation, 
to heal this situation. Today we have that opportunity. Vote in favor 
of H.R. 1122.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record a comment. Although 
Dr. Coburn has his opinion, that is just one doctor.
  I would like to say that a panel convened by the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists says that while it is not the only 
option, ``An intact D&X may be the best or most appropriate procedure 
in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of 
a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based 
upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision.''
  Mr. Speaker, if we believe this is murder, we should be filing 
criminal charges, and I do not see anybody doing that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, like most Americans, I wrestle with this issue 
more than any other. It hits in every possible way, moral, physical. It 
is a gut-wrenching issue.
  Like most Americans, I oppose late-term abortion. Like most 
Americans, I would support late-term abortion only to save the life of 
the mother or to protect her health, to protect her from serious health 
endangerment.
  This legislation does not do this. This legislation does not seek to 
protect the health of the mother. If people wanted to truly ban late-
term abortions, we would not ban one procedure, we would ban all late-
term abortions, which I have voted for, except to save the life of the 
mother or to protect her from serious health risks.
  Mr. Speaker, agonizing about this, I called three physicians across 
the country, three ob/gyn's. I respect the opinion of the gentleman 
from Oklahoma. They do not agree with him. That is a fair statement 
that there is not agreement on this. But those three ob/gyn's who have 
done a wide range of deliveries, who each of them have been delivering 
babies at least 23 years, all of them said that this procedure in 
limited circumstances was necessary.
  In fact, I believe in each case they had performed the procedure in 
many, many years of deliveries only twice, and in two cases at least 
then necessary to protect the health of the mother, because the child 
was going to be born dead, was hydrocephalic, and they felt there was 
no other way to do it and to protect the life of the mother.
  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagrees 
with what this Congress is about to do today. I have heard about the 
American Medical Association, but the physicians that actually deliver 
the babies, they disagree and they think that this is a bad piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that late-term abortions should not be 
allowed except when the mother's life or her health would be seriously 
in danger. But I cannot vote for this legislation, because that means I 
have to look a woman in the eye and say, even though there may have 
been a medical procedure that would have protected your health, the 
Congress voted not to let it be done.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the amount of 
time left for each side, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina [Ms. Myrick] has 7\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Slaughter] has 8\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott].

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because the 
rule leaves out the possibility that we can consider a bill that is 
constitutional. This bill is clearly unconstitutional, and State laws 
have been thrown out recently because the Supreme Court has said that 
we cannot restrict a woman's right to choose if the restriction 
endangers the life and health of the mother.
  Mr. Speaker, nine State lawsuits have been decided just this year 
that have thrown out similar State laws. For example, in Michigan the 
court said that such a ban ``would operate to eliminate one of the 
safest post-first-trimester abortion procedures,'' and the court 
therefore found that a woman would have to go into riskier procedures 
and they threw out the law.
  In Nebraska the ban was unconstitutional because it would subject 
patients to ``appreciably greater risk of injury or death.'' That law 
was enjoined just this year.
  In Montana, just this year, the court concluded that there would be 
an increase in the amount of risk and pain that must be suffered, and 
they enjoined the implementation of the law.
  Louisiana, they found that it would be unduly burdensome by virtue of 
banning the safest, most common procedures used after the first 
trimester.
  Mr. Speaker, State after State after State concluded that the law was 
unconstitutional. We need to defeat the previous question so that we 
can consider the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
that would make the law constitutional so that we can consider a 
constitutional law. I would hope that we would defeat the previous 
question, adopt the Hoyer amendment, or defeat the rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt]).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I have often wondered what would happen if 
Congress based our decisions on truth and logic. Today we are debating 
a rule

[[Page H8646]]

for banning partial-birth abortion. Some will say the procedure is 
necessary but the gentleman from Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn, was very clear. 
He says that it is unnecessary, and he has delivered 3,200 children. I 
think he probably knows what he is talking about. Some will say it is 
needed to allow for the health of the mother. That is really undefined. 
It could mean a headache or perhaps an emotional strain.
  The truth is this procedure is not needed. Its purpose is very 
simple. It is for the convenience of performing abortions. It is to 
satisfy a very specific group here in America, the abortion industry. 
That is why in my estimation an abortionist from Wichita, KS, traveled 
to Washington, DC, to attend a Presidential coffee, contributed $25,000 
to the Democratic National Party, following the President's veto of the 
partial-birth abortion ban.
  There is a letter then from the Pope condemning the President for 
this veto. It is very interesting the Pope has only written about six 
such letters this century, all the Popes this century. And they include 
people like Ayatollah Khomeini, Muammar Qadhafi, Adolf Hitler, tyrants, 
all tyrants who placed a very low value on human life.
  The opposition to this rule and the opposition to this ban is very 
simple. It is merely support for the abortion industry, purely to 
support those who want the convenience of this procedure. It is not 
necessary medically. It is not needed for the health of the mother. It 
is just a convenience for the abortion industry. That is the truth and 
the logic behind this debate. That is the truth and logic behind these 
arguments, simply to support the abortion industry.
  I say to my colleagues, let us support H.R. 1122. Let us support this 
rule and let us ban this hideous procedure that is not necessary, not 
for medical reasons, not for political reasons, purely to support the 
abortion industry.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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, this issue is one that 
generates a great deal of emotion. I appreciate that we all may agree 
and disagree. I think the strength of our democracy belongs in that 
opportunity to agree and disagree and to have our voices be heard.
  I am compelled to speak on this issue, one, because the law does 
indicate that a woman in this Nation has a right to choose. I am 
distressed that our leaders did not see fit to provide an open rule so 
that all of our views could be expressed. I do not ask my colleagues to 
agree with me but I do ask them to allow me the opportunity to vote on 
my position and the rights of women to choose.
  Yesterday afternoon at the Committee on Rules both the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] 
offered amendments. The committee, however, did not see fit to make 
either of these amendments in order. This should have been an open 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that this rule be opposed and defeated and, in the 
alternative, that these amendments be allowed so that all of our voices 
and all of our views can be represented, and the law can be 
represented, and a woman's right to choose.
  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.
  Yesterday afternoon at the Rules Committee meeting, both 
Representatives Lowey and Hoyer offered amendments to H.R. 1122. The 
committee, however, did not see fit to make either of these amendments 
in order. I would like to say that I was surprised upon hearing this 
decision, but I cannot. Once again the committee has issued a 
restrictive rule that denies the Members of this Congress the 
opportunity to vote on an alternative to their favored legislation.
  I find it particularly interesting that the committee has denied this 
House a vote on Mr. Hoyer's amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
That amendment would have banned all abortions in the final trimester 
allowing only a very narrow exception for the life and physical health 
of the mother. In fact, this is a much broader ban than that currently 
in H.R. 1122. It seems to me that if the goal of this bill's sponsors 
was truly to protect life, then they would support the Hoyer amendment.
  My colleagues this rule does not respect the divergence of our views. 
It does not allow Members to cast a vote for an alternative that 
reflects those views. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this rule on H.R. 1122.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendments to 
the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. I urge my colleagues to really 
think for a moment about what we are debating here today.
  This is not a bill that will end a persons's choice. This is not a 
vote that will overturn Roe versus Wade. This vote will not end a 
person's right to terminate their pregnancy. And this vote will not 
endanger the lives of pregnant women across this country.
  This vote will save innocent children from having their lives ended 
before they have a chance to speak. This vote will simply prohibit one 
and only one type of particularly gruesome abortion, a type of abortion 
where a live baby, one that could usually survive outside the womb, is 
partially delivered, then has the first vision of light snuffed out 
forever.
  With modern medical procedures available, we must ask ourselves if it 
is necessary to sacrifice innocent children because it is convenient or 
easier for the parents. I do not think so and neither do millions of 
Americans across this country who believe, just as I do, that life is 
too precious to waste.
  A couple from Michigan could have chosen to abort their baby when 
they were told that the baby had a tumor that endangered her life. When 
she was only 4 inches long, Sarah Elizabeth was briefly removed from 
her mother's womb so doctors could remove the growing tumor. Sarah's 
heart stopped beating during the surgery and the surgeon performed CPR 
for 20 minutes to revive her before returning her to the safety of the 
womb. In July 1996, Sarah was delivered and is now a healthy toddler. 
Time and time again medical miracles like Sarah's show us that a child 
in the womb is a unique, irreplaceable and precious human being 
deserving of our help and protection.
  Unfortunately, even as lives like Sarah's are being saved by 
scientific breakthroughs, other children's lives are being extinguished 
by partial-birth abortions. The care Sarah received from a 
conscientious surgeon provides a stark contrast to the treatment her 
mother might have legally have chosen, a partial-birth abortion.
  Sarah was not in perfect physical health when she was growing in her 
mother's womb. She had a life-threatening condition. But she, like 
every other precious unborn baby, was always a perfect child in need of 
love and care.
  Support this bill and give thousands of children like Sarah at least 
a chance at life.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to urge Members to defeat the previous question. If it is 
defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered in the Committee on 
Rules yesterday by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. The 
amendment is the same language offered by Senator Daschle during Senate 
consideration.
  Members of this House deserve an opportunity to vote on this 
substitute. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the text of the amendment:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 262

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1122) 
     to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth

[[Page H8647]]

     abortions, with Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in 
     the House, any rule of the House to the contrary 
     notwithstanding, a single motion offered by Representative 
     Hoyer of Maryland that the House concur in the amendments of 
     the Senate with an amendment. The Senate amendments and the 
     motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without 
     intervening motion or demand for division of the question.''.
                                                                    ____


 Hoyer Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1122 as Amended 
                             by the Senate

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Comprehensive Abortion Ban 
     Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade, the 
     government has an ``important and legitimate interest in 
     preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman . 
     . . and has still another important and legitimate interest 
     in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests 
     are separate and distinct. Each grow in substantiality as the 
     woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each 
     becomes compelling''.
       (2) In delineating at what point the Government's interest 
     in fetal life becomes ``compelling'', Roe v. Wade held that 
     ``a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate 
     decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability'', a 
     conclusion reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern 
     Pennsylvania v. Casey.
       (3) Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. 
     Casey also reiterated the holding in Roe v. Wade that the 
     government's interest in potential life becomes compelling 
     with fetal viability, stating that ``subsequent to viability, 
     the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of 
     human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, 
     abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical 
     judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the 
     mother.''
       (4) According to the Supreme Court, viability ``is the time 
     at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and 
     nourishing a life outside the womb, so that the independent 
     existence of the second life can in reason and all fairness 
     be the object of State protection that now overrides the 
     rights of the woman.''
       (5) The Supreme Court has thus indicated that it is 
     constitutional for Congress to ban abortions occurring after 
     viability so long as the ban does not apply when a woman's 
     life or health faces a serious threat.
       (6) Even when it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy to 
     save the life or health of the mother, every medically 
     appropriate measure should be taken to deliver a viable 
     fetus.
       (7) It is well established that women may suffer serious 
     health conditions during pregnancy, such as breast cancer, 
     preeclampsia, uterine rupture or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 
     among others, that may require the pregnancy to be 
     terminated.
       (8) While such situations are rare, not only would it be 
     unconstitutional but it would be unconscionable for Congress 
     to ban abortions in such cases, forcing women to endure 
     severe damage to their health and in some cases, risk early 
     death.
       (9) In cases where the mother's health is not at such high 
     risk, however, it is appropriate for Congress to assert its 
     ``compelling interests'' in fetal life by prohibiting 
     abortions after fetal viability.
       (10) While many States have banned abortions of viable 
     fetuses, in some States it continues to be legal for a 
     healthy woman to abort a viable fetus.
       (11) As a result, women seeking abortions may travel 
     between the States to take advantage of differing State laws.
       (12) To prevent abortions of viable fetuses not 
     necessitated by severe medical complications, Congress must 
     act to make such abortions illegal in all States.
       (13) Abortion of a viable fetus should be prohibited 
     throughout the United States, unless a woman's life or health 
     is threatened and, even when it is necessary to terminate the 
     pregnancy, every measure should be taken, consistent with the 
     goals of protecting the mother's life and health, to preserve 
     the life and health of the fetus.

                    CHAPTER 74--ABORTION PROHIBITION

Sec.
1531. Prohibition.
1532. Penalties.
1533. State regulations.
1534. Rule of construction.

       1531. Prohibition.
       (a) In General: It shall be unlawful for a physician to 
     abort a viable fetus unless the physician certifies that the 
     continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's 
     life or risk grievous injury to her physical health.
       (b) Grievous Injury:
       (1) In general: For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
     ``grievous injury'' means--
       (A) a severely debilitating disease or impairment 
     specifically caused by the pregnancy; or
       (B) an inability to provide necessary treatment for a life-
     threatening condition.
       (2) Limitation: The term ``grievous injury'' does not 
     include any condition that is not medically diagnosable or 
     any condition for which termination of pregnancy is not 
     medically indicated.
       (c) Physician: In this chapter, the term ``physician'' 
     means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized 
     to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the 
     doctor performs such activity, or any other individual 
     legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, except 
     that any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise 
     legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who 
     nevertheless directly performs an abortion in violation of 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to the provisions of this 
     section.
       (d) No Conspiracy: No woman who has had an abortion after 
     fetal viability may be prosecuted under this section for a 
     conspiracy to violate this section or for an offense under 
     section 2, 3, 4, or 1512 of title 18, United States Code.
       1532. Penalties.
       (a) Action by Attorney General: The Attorney General, the 
     Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or 
     any Assistant Attorney General or United States Attorney 
     specifically designated by the Attorney General may commence 
     a civil action under this chapter in any appropriate United 
     States district court to enforce the provisions of this 
     chapter.
       (b) Relief:
       (1) First offense: Upon a finding by the court that the 
     respondent in an action commenced under subsection (a) has 
     knowingly violated a provision of this chapter, the court 
     shall notify the appropriate State medical licensing 
     authority in order to effect the suspension of the 
     respondent's medical license in accordance with the 
     regulations and procedures developed by the State under 
     section 1533(d), or shall assess a civil penalty against 
     the respondent in an amount not exceeding $100,000, or 
     both.
       (2) Second offense: If a respondent in an action commenced 
     under subsection (a) has been found to have knowingly 
     violated a provision of this chapter on a prior occasion, the 
     court shall notify the appropriate State medical licensing 
     authority in order to effect the revocation of the 
     respondent's medical license in accordance with the 
     regulations and procedures developed by the State under 
     section 1533(d), or shall assess a civil penalty against the 
     respondent in an amount not exceeding $250,000, or both.
       (3) Hearing: With respect to an action under subsection 
     (a), the appropriate State medical licensing authority shall 
     be given notification of and an opportunity to be heard at a 
     hearing to determine the penalty to be imposed under this 
     subsection.
       (c) Certification Requirements: At the time of the 
     commencement of an action under subsection (a), the Attorney 
     General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney 
     General, or any Assistant Attorney General or United States 
     Attorney specifically designated by the Attorney General 
     shall certify to the court involved that, at least 30 
     calendar days prior to the filing of such action, the 
     Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate 
     Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General or United 
     States Attorney involved--
       (1) has provided notice of the alleged violation of this 
     section, in writing, to the Governor or chief executive 
     officer and attorney general or chief legal officer of the 
     State or political subdivision involved, as well as to the 
     State medical licensing board or other appropriate State 
     agency; and
       (2) believes that such an action by the United States is in 
     the public interest and necessary to secure substantial 
     justice.
       1533. Regulations.
       (a) Regulations of Secretary for Certification:
       (1) In general: Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this chapter, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall publish proposed regulations for the filing of 
     certifications by physicians under section 1531(a).
       (2) Requirement: The regulations under paragraph (1) shall 
     require that a certification filed under section 1531(a) 
     contain--
       (A) a certification by the physician (on penalty of 
     perjury, as permitted under section 1746 of title 28) that, 
     in his or her best medical judgment, the abortion involved 
     was medically necessary pursuant to such section; and
       (B) a description by the physician of the medical 
     indications supporting his or her judgment.
       (3) Confidentiality: The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall promulgate regulations to ensure that the 
     identity of the mother described in section 1531(a) is kept 
     confidential, with respect to a certification filed by a 
     physician under section 1531(a).
       (b) Action by State: A State, and the medical licensing 
     authority of the State, shall develop regulations and 
     procedures for the revocation or suspension of the medical 
     license of a physician upon a finding under section 1532 that 
     the physician has violated a provision of this chapter. A 
     State that fails to implement such procedures shall be 
     subject to loss of funding under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act.
       1534. Rule of Construction.
       (1) In general: The requirements of this chapter shall not 
     apply with respect to post-viability abortions in a State if 
     there is a State law in effect in the State that regulates, 
     restricts, or prohibits such abortions to the extent 
     permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
       (2) State law: In paragraph (1), the term ``State law'' 
     includes all laws, decisions,

[[Page H8648]]

     rules or regulations of any State, or any other State action 
     having the effect of law.
       (b) Clerical Amendment: The table of chapters for part I of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:
       74. Prohibition of post-viability abortions
       1531. * * *
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, partial-birth abortions involve 
killing partially delivered babies, usually from the fifth month on 
into the later stages of pregnancy. This gruesome procedure consists of 
partially delivering the live baby feet first, with only the head 
inside the mother's womb, and then stabbing the child at the base of 
the skull.
  Partial-birth abortions are performed mainly on healthy babies of 
healthy mothers. The American Medical Association says that the partial 
delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the 
womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and doctors. The AMA 
could find no identified circumstance in which the procedure was the 
only safe and effective abortion method.
  The worst tragedy of partial-birth abortions is that most are done 
for strictly elective reasons. We must take action to end this heinous 
act of killing the innocent unborn.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Hoyer], is recognized for 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This rule 
precludes the one opportunity that Members will have to vote against 
late-term abortions, elective or otherwise.
  Hear me now, Mr. Speaker. Voting against this rule will be the only 
opportunity they have to vote against late-term abortions.
  Why do I say that? The American press has done a disservice to the 
American people in characterizing the bill before us as a late-term 
abortion bill. It is not. It does not mention late term. It is not 
about late term. It is about a procedure.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] was accurate on that matter. 
I want to refer to some of the things that the gentleman from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Coburn] said, because the Republicans rightfully point to a man 
who has experience and, therefore, can speak with more experience than 
the rest of us.
  First of all, he said that this bill that is pending before us does 
not preclude a single abortion, not one. It does not preclude one 
abortion, if we vote and pass this bill and the President signs it. It 
does prohibit a procedure.
  I further asked the gentleman from Oklahoma how many of these 
abortions, as a matter of fact, he said, that were done through this 
procedure were elective. He said approximately 80 percent, that has 
been repeated a number of times, were elective.
  I say to my colleagues, if they vote against the rule and allow the 
Hoyer amendment to be offered, they will have an opportunity to 
preclude every one of those 80 percent abortions that, as the gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] said, most were done postviability.
  Let me make my statement absolutely accurate. Every postviability 
elective abortion, not just done with this procedure but any procedure, 
will be outlawed. I want my colleagues to understand, voting against 
this rule and voting for the Hoyer amendment, which is the Daschle-
Snowe, Democratic minority leader and Republican Senator from Maine, 
the Daschle amendment, is the only opportunity we will have to vote 
against late-term abortions and have the Federal law essentially like 
43 other States.
  This is not an isolated judgment nor an independent act or amendment. 
This is an amendment that 43 legislatures have essentially said ought 
to be the law. What does it say? It says that it permits a 
postviability abortion only if the life of the woman is endangered, to 
that extent it tracks the Hyde language, or if carrying the fetus to 
term would present the, and I quote, risk of grievous injury to her 
physical health. It therefore precludes any claim that this is a Mack 
truck exception for mental health.

                              {time}  1145

  It specifically requires grievous physical risk. The amendment 
defines grievous injury as meaning that the continuation of the 
pregnancy would directly result in, and again I quote from the Hoyer-
Daschle amendment, a severely debilitating disease or impairment, or 
prevents a physician from providing necessary treatment for a life-
threatening condition; for example, a fast spreading cancer, the 
treatment of which, aggressive chemotherapy, would be incompatible with 
carrying a healthy fetus to term.
  My colleagues, this imposes a $250,000 fine and possible revocation 
of license on the doctor who violates this.
  I want to make it very clear to everybody in this House I am opposed 
to late term elective abortions. They should not happen in America. If, 
on the other hand, we have at risk the life of the mother, that is a 
wrenching judgment that the mother and her physician will have to make, 
and I will not interpose my judgment in that critical situation.
  So I ask the Members of this House to give us an opportunity to state 
clearly the policy of the United States of America that late-term 
abortions are against public policy. The only way we can do that is to 
vote against this rule so that this amendment can be offered to this 
bill.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I would ask a question of the last speaker. 
How does the gentleman's definition in his bill trump the Supreme 
Court, which defined health in Doe versus Bolton as a state of 
emotional well-being? How does his mere statute trump the Supreme 
Court's definition of health?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. How does the Hyde statute, sir?
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not talk about the 
Supreme Court.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, nor do I.
  Mr. HYDE. Does the gentleman not have an answer to my question?
  Mr. HOYER. I do.
  Mr. HYDE. Well, let us hear it, I am running out of time.
  Mr. HOYER. It enunciates the policy of 43 States, I tell my friend 
from Illinois, and I think we should enunciate it as a Federal Congress 
as being the appropriate and right policy to preclude late-term 
abortions.
  Mr. HYDE. I welcome the gentleman to the ranks of pro-lifers.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about Mike and Nancy Johnson 
from Muscogee, OK. I have delivered five babies for them. One of their 
babies had a tremendous anencephalic complicated cystic structure on 
its brain. Now, this procedure that is supposedly so important that it 
has to be there for the life and health of a woman could have been used 
on her. But I want to tell my colleagues what they chose to do. They 
chose to deliver that baby. And in the delivery room, as that baby was 
born, I placed it in the hands of the father, and over the next 2 hours 
that baby was comforted in its death.
  I want to contrast that with the idea of a child dying in its 
father's arms, with the idea of a physician ramming a hole in the back 
of a skull and sucking the brains out of a child. Tell me, my 
colleagues, which way is the right way to do it?
  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. Calvert). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair announces that he will 
reduce to

[[Page H8649]]

a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by 
electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of 
agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 280, 
nays 144, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 499]

                               YEAS--280

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     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
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--144

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gilman
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Foglietta
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Hilliard
     Lewis (KY)
     Nethercutt
     Payne
     Schiff
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1209

  Messrs. KIND, SHAYS, SERRANO, HORN, GILMAN, and NEAL of Massachusetts 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. KAPTUR and Mr. TURNER 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. Calvert). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 262, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 1122), to amend title 18, United States Code, 
to ban partial-birth abortions, with Senate amendments thereto, and ask 
for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:
       Senate amendments:
       Page 2, line 16, strike out all after ``injury'' down to 
     and including ``purpose'' in line 17.
       Page 3, after line 10 insert:
       (3) As used in this section, the term ``vaginally delivers 
     a living fetus before killing the fetus'' means deliberately 
     and intentionally delivers into the vagina a living fetus, or 
     a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing 
     a procedure the physician knows will kill the fetus, and 
     kills the fetus.
       Page 3, after line 23, insert:
       (d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section 
     may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether 
     the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the 
     mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, 
     illness or injury.
       (2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue 
     at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the 
     defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial 
     for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take 
     place.
       Page 3, line 24, strike out ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.


                Motion Offered by Mr. Canady of Florida

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
  The text of the motion is as follows:

       Mr. Canady of Florida moves that the House concur in each 
     of the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 1122.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 262, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Lowey], each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].


                             General Leave

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on the legislation under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise to urge the House to vote for the motion to 
concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth 
Abortion Ban Act of 1997, a bill which bans an abortion procedure in 
which a living baby is partially delivered before the abortionist kills 
the baby and completes the delivery.
  Under H.R. 1122, an abortionist who violates the ban would be 
subjected to fines or a maximum of 2 years imprisonment or both. The 
bill also establishes a civil cause of action for damages against an 
abortionist who violates the ban.
  Mr. Speaker, thousands of partial-birth abortions are performed each 
year, primarily in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, on the 
healthy babies of healthy mothers. The infants subjected to partial-
birth abortion are not unborn. Their lives instead are taken during a 
breech delivery.

[[Page H8650]]

  A breech delivery, a procedure which obstetricians use in some 
circumstances to bring a healthy child into the world, is perverted and 
made into an instrument of death. The physician, traditionally trained 
to do everything in his power to assist and protect both mother and 
child during the birth process, deliberately kills the child in the 
birth canal.
  H.R. 1122 would end this cruel practice which bears an undeniable 
resemblance to infanticide.
  The Senate amendment to H.R. 1122 makes three acceptable changes to 
the House-passed version of the bill. The first amendment deletes 
superfluous language in the life exception included in the act. The 
bill still bans partial-birth abortion unless it is necessary to save 
the life of the mother.
  The second amendment clarifies the definition of partial-birth 
abortion. H.R. 1122 defines ``partial-birth abortion'' as ``an abortion 
in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally 
delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the 
delivery.'' The Senate amendment further clarifies that ``partially 
vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus'' means 
``deliberately and intentionally delivers into the vagina a living 
fetus, or substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a 
procedure the physician knows will kill the fetus, and kills the 
fetus.''
  The third Senate amendment allows the physician who is prosecuted for 
performing a partial-birth abortion to present evidence in court from 
the State medical licensing authority on whether the partial-birth 
abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother.
  The Senate voted to approve these three clarifying amendments to H.R. 
1122 and passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in May of this year. 
Shortly thereafter, the American Medical Association House of Delegates 
voted to support H.R. 1122 with the Senate amendments because partial-
birth abortion, quote, ``is not good medicine.''
  As we have discussed in prior debates in this House, the realities of 
partial-birth abortion are truly horrible to contemplate, they are 
truly horrible to discuss. The partial-birth abortion procedure is 
performed from around 20 weeks to full term. It is well documented that 
a baby is highly sensitive to pain stimuli during this period and even 
earlier.
  In his testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution in 1995, 
Prof. Robert White, director of the division of neurosurgery and brain 
research laboratory at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, stated, 
``The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, 
is fully capable of experiencing pain.'' After analyzing the partial-
birth abortion procedure, Dr. White concluded, ``Without question, all 
of this is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to 
such a surgical procedure.''
  Abortion advocates have claimed that partial-birth abortion is rare 
and only used in extreme circumstances. That has been a focus of the 
debate that has been waged against the ban on partial-birth abortion. 
But this claim is contradicted by the evidence.
  Dr. Martin Haskell, an Ohio abortionist, told the American Medical 
News that the vast majority of the partial-birth abortions he performs 
are elective. He stated, and I quote, ``And I'll be quite frank: Most 
of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. In my particular 
case, probably 20 percent are for genetic reasons. And the other 80 
percent are purely elective.''
  Another abortionist, Dr. McMahon of California, used the partial-
birth abortion method through the entire 40 weeks of pregnancy. He sent 
the Subcommittee on the Constitution a graph which showed the 
percentage of ``flawed fetuses'' that he aborted using the partial-
birth abortion method. The graph shows that even at 26 weeks, half the 
babies that Dr. McMahon aborted were perfectly healthy, and many of the 
babies he described as ``flawed'' had conditions that were compatible 
with long life, either with or without a disability. For example, Dr. 
McMahon listed nine partial-birth abortions performed because the baby 
had a cleft lip.
  In September 1996, the Sunday Record, a newspaper in Bergen, NJ, 
reported that in New Jersey alone, at least 1,500 partial-birth 
abortions are performed each year, 3 times the supposed national rate. 
Moreover, doctors say only a minuscule amount are for medical reasons.
  The article quotes an abortionist in New Jersey who describes his 
partial-birth abortion patients as follows: ``Most are Medicaid 
patients, and most are for elective, not medical reasons: people who 
didn't realize, or didn't care, how far along they were. Most are 
teenagers.''
  Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the second largest trade 
association of abortion providers in the country, admitted that he 
intentionally lied through his teeth when he told a Nightline camera 
that partial-birth abortion is rare and performed only in extreme 
medical circumstances.

  The New York Times reported that Mr. Fitzsimmons ``says the procedure 
is performed far more often than his colleagues,'' that is, other 
advocates in the abortion rights community, ``have acknowledged, and on 
healthy women bearing healthy fetuses.'' ``The abortion rights folks 
know it,'' he said.
  Ron Fitzsimmons' admission makes clear that the pro-abortion lobby 
has engaged in a concerted and ongoing effort to deceive the Congress 
and the American people about partial-birth abortion. They attempted to 
hide the truth, they attempted to conceal the facts about this 
procedure because they knew that the American people would be outraged 
by the facts.
  When President Clinton vetoed H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion 
Ban Act of 1995, he claimed that women needed partial-birth abortion 
for their health and future fertility. That claim has been proven to be 
completely false.
  Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has said, ``In no way can I 
twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described, you 
know, partial birth, and then destruction of the unborn child before 
the head is born, is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly 
can't be a necessity for the baby. So I am opposed to partial-birth 
abortion.''
  In addition, a group of over 400 obstetricians and gynecologists and 
maternal-fetal specialists have unequivocally stated, and I quote, 
``Partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a 
woman's health or her fertility. In fact, the opposite is true: The 
procedure can pose a significant and immediate threat to both the 
pregnant woman's health and her fertility.''
  The American Medical Association agrees with these doctors that 
partial-birth abortion is not good medicine and supports banning the 
procedure. I point out the American Medical Association is on record in 
strong support of abortion rights, but even they recognize that this 
procedure simply falls outside the pale.
  However, the President has remained unmoved by these facts. He still 
threatens to veto this bill. He has tried to change the subject by 
supporting a purported ban on abortion in the seventh month of 
pregnancy and later. Of course, unfortunately, the President's supposed 
ban includes a broad health exception that would give the abortionist 
unfettered discretion to decide when an abortion would be performed.
  The proposal would allow the abortionist to perform postviability 
abortions using any method, including partial-birth abortion, if the 
abortionist certified in his or her best medical judgment that the 
continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk 
grievous injury to her physical health. Of course, the continuation of 
any pregnancy does involve at least some degree of risk, however small.
  Dr. Warren Hern, a third-trimester abortionist in Colorado, says of 
this proposal, ``I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a 
woman's life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health.'' 
Dr. Hern, using his best medical judgment, believes that any pregnancy 
threatens a mother's life and risks grievous injury to her physical 
health. He has said it unequivocally.
  Dr. Hern is one of the leading experts on abortion in this country. 
He has written a textbook on the subject. He is a recognized authority. 
Now, if Dr. Hern signed a paper that asserted this belief, he would 
satisfy the certification exception in the President's proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, all of this demonstrates beyond any doubt that the 
President's

[[Page H8651]]

proposal would not do anything to stop any abortion. Furthermore, the 
President's proposal, which covers only postviability abortions, does 
not even purport to affect the vast majority of partial-birth abortions 
which take place in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, not in the 
third trimester.
  To sum it all up, the President's proposal is a sham. Mr. Speaker, 
the President knows that partial-birth abortions are primarily 
performed before the seventh month of pregnancy, in the fifth and sixth 
months, on thousands of healthy babies of healthy mothers. His 
purported ban would not protect one of these babies. We will not allow 
the President to change the subject from the disturbing facts of 
partial-birth abortion, as he has attempted to do. The President is 
supporting an indefensible procedure that should not be allowed in a 
civilized society.
  I would ask my colleagues to look at partial-birth abortion. We have 
described this procedure in this House before, but I ask my colleagues 
to consider again what is involved when an abortionist performs the 
procedure known as partial-birth abortion.
  In the first step of this horrible procedure, the abortionist, guided 
by ultrasound, grabs the live baby's leg with forceps. In the next 
step, the baby's leg is pulled into the birth canal. The abortionist 
then delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.

                              {time}  1230

  Of course, if the head came out, none of the rest of this could 
happen. If the head came out and the abortionist took any action 
against that child, that would undoubtedly be considered murder under 
our law. Then, after the baby is delivered, except for the head, the 
abortionist jabs scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then 
opened to enlarge the hole.
  I ask my colleagues to look at this critical stage of this horrible 
procedure. This is what is going on when a partial-birth abortion is 
performed. Then, in the final stage of partial-birth abortion, the 
scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted into the hole 
which has been created by the abortionist in the baby's head, and the 
baby's brains are sucked out and the delivery is completed.
  I ask the Members, how could jamming those scissors into the skull of 
the baby, into the back of the baby's head, be possibly required for 
the health of the mother? It simply makes no sense. The claims made by 
the President and other supporters of partial-birth abortion about the 
mother's health belong with all the other falsehoods that have been a 
part of the campaign against this bill, and are advanced by people who 
are desperate to escape from reality in their quest to defend the 
indefensible. They cannot defend this, therefore they are attempting to 
create a cloud of confusion and deceive the American people.
  In this House we deal with many issues. We have hundreds of votes 
here. The issues come and go. Most of the votes we will cast here will 
soon be forgotten. Even those that seem rather important to us at the 
moment will fade away. They will become a distant memory. But I believe 
that today's vote on partial-birth abortion will be remembered. The 
Members of this House will not be able to escape responsibility for the 
votes they cast on this important issue. History will also remember the 
President, whose veto had to be overridden in order to protect helpless 
infants from this gruesome procedure.
  I appeal to my colleagues, put aside all the myths that have been 
generated in this debate in opposition to this bill, put aside all the 
distortions, put aside all the misinformation that has been 
disseminated. Look at the facts, consider the truth, and face up to the 
reality of partial-birth abortion. This is it. This procedure cannot be 
defended.
  I would ask that my colleagues support the Senate amendments to the 
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and help bring this cruel, this brutal 
practice to an end in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill. This is the 
fifth time that the House will vote on this issue. Unfortunately, it 
will not be the last. As my colleagues know very well, the President 
will veto this legislation because it does not contain an exception to 
ensure the health of American women, so we will be back here again next 
year.
  We have repeatedly tried to offer an amendment to protect the health 
of the mother to this bill on the floor of this House, and the 
Republican leadership has consistently blocked us. We offered to sit 
down and work with the Republican leadership to craft a health 
exception that we could all accept. The Republican leadership refused. 
The President will sign this legislation if it contains an exception 
that would protect the health of the mother, but the Republican 
leadership will not even give us a chance to put one in this 
legislation.
  The Republican leadership does not want to ban this procedure. 
Unfortunately, it wants a political issue. Republicans would rather 
debate this again and again and again, rather than send the President a 
bill that he can sign into law.
  Mr. Speaker, do not take my word for it. Let us listen to the words 
of Ralph Reed. On May 21 he told the New York Times that this was, and 
I quote, ``A winning, gold-plated issue going into the 1996 election.'' 
No pious words about the defenseless unborn, no hand-wringing over 
moral decay, just a winning gold-plated issue. This, Mr. Speaker, 
sadly, is pure politics, plain and simple.
  Mr. Speaker, we will hear a great deal today about the AMA and its 
endorsement of this bill. We will hear that changes made to the bill in 
the Senate have improved it. Nonsense. The Senate amendments are window 
dressing that provide cover to doctors while leaving women, frankly, 
out in the cold. The AMA struck a very cynical bargain with the 
Republican leadership to endorse this bill.
  Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, the AMA is not the final word on this issue. 
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, ACOG, the 
health professionals who actually deliver babies and care for women, 
oppose this legislation. The American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists oppose this legislation. Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, 
that the AMA represents the doctors, not the women.
  So while the changes made to this bill in the Senate may make it 
marginally more difficult to throw doctors in jail when they are making 
these very difficult decisions, they will do nothing, absolutely 
nothing, to save the lives or preserve the health of women.
  So we are left with the same bill that we have voted on four times 
before, the same bill that puts the lives and health of women at risk, 
the same bill that violates the Constitution of the United States of 
America and tramples on the rights of American women. Women from around 
the Nation testified before Congress that this procedure protected 
their lives and their health, women like Tammy Watts, Claudia Addes, 
Maureen Britel, women who would have been harmed by this bill.
  These women, Mr. Speaker, desperately wanted to have children. They 
had purchased baby clothes. They had picked out names. They did not 
abort because of a headache. What an insult, Mr. Speaker. They did not 
choose to abort because their prom dress did not fit. They chose to 
become mothers, and only terminated their pregnancies because of tragic 
circumstances.
  Mr. Speaker, who in this body will stand in judgment of them? Which 
of the Members will stand in the operating room and limit their 
options? Who, at the agonizing moment, will decide? That is the 
question? Who is going to make this decision, the Congress of the 
United States, or the women and families of America?
  The courts have been very clear on this question, and have 
consistently found bills of this type to be unconstitutional. Lawsuits 
have been filed in 10 States challenging State statutes similar to the 
bill before us. In 10 States courts have ruled that the laws were 
unconstitutional, struck them down, limited their scope, or enjoined 
them.
  Mr. Speaker, when the House debated this issue in March, the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] assured us that this 
bill was constitutional and consistent with Roe. Since then this ban 
has been struck down, changed, or enjoined on constitutional grounds in 
10 States, 10 States. States

[[Page H8652]]

have moved ahead, passed these bans, and they have been struck down 
again and again. The courts have clearly spoken. This bill violates a 
woman's constitutionally protected right to choose.
  Unfortunately, we know that the antichoice majority will not let a 
little thing like the Constitution of the United States of America 
stand in the way of their abortion ban. Mr. Speaker, the anti-choice 
Republican leadership has been waging war on the reproductive rights of 
American women since taking over this House in 1994.

  In the last Congress alone, the leadership voted to limit abortion 
rights more than 50 separate times, a new record. It is clear that this 
leadership wants to ban every abortion, that is the ultimate goal, 
procedure by procedure, trimester by trimester. They want to rollback 
Roe versus Wade and push American women back into the back alley.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a different vision. We will continue to fight to 
ensure that women are able to obtain safe, legal abortions, and we will 
work as hard as we can to reduce the number of abortions by providing 
women with greater access to family planning and contraceptives. We 
will work to empower women to make responsible choices about their own 
bodies.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have chosen to make our 
bodies their battleground, and they will not succeed.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], the distinguished ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we focus on what 
this bill does. It prohibits one procedure. Nothing in the bill affects 
the decision to have any abortion. If this bill passes, women who 
decide to have a legal abortion will still be able to get that 
abortion. Some will just have to be subjected to other procedures that 
their doctors conclude will be more likely to kill, maim, or sterilize 
them.
  We have heard, and I assume we will hear more, graphic descriptions 
of this procedure, but the fact is that other alternatives which will 
be used have not been described graphically today, and probably will 
not be. So the point of this bill is not to reduce the number of 
abortions. In fact, the point of today's vote will not even be to enact 
a bill, because this version is clearly unconstitutional, so much so 
that similar laws in the States have been thrown out at least nine 
times this year alone.
  Mr. Speaker, though abortion has always been a controversial issue, 
the fact is that since 1973 the Supreme Court decision Roe versus Wade 
decreed that abortion will be legal in this country. Roe, which is 
still the law of the land, held that a woman's right to have an 
abortion before fetal viability is a fundamental right.
  The State may, however, prohibit post-viability abortions, but only 
if there is no substantial threat to the life or health of the mother. 
In Planned Parenthood versus Casey, 1992, the court reaffirmed this 
holding. Mr. Speaker, other Supreme Court decisions have added to this 
concept by prohibiting regulations that jeopardize a woman's health by 
chilling the physician's exercise of discretion in determining which 
abortion method may be used.
  So interference with a physician's exercise of discretion jeopardizes 
the woman's health, and is therefore as dangerous as it is 
unconstitutional. Although the health of the mother must remain a 
primary interest in order to pass constitutional muster, today's bill 
includes no provision which allows an exception from the ban in those 
cases where the other methods pose serious health risks to the mother. 
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act will not prevent a single abortion. 
It simply prevents one procedure which, in certain circumstances, is 
the safest procedure available.
  Mr. Speaker, many of us support a total prohibition on post-viability 
abortions as long as it is consistent with Roe versus Wade, by 
protecting the health of the mother. But this bill only prohibits one 
procedure, not the decision to undergo the abortion. Therefore, if this 
bill passes, the only effect, as I have said, will be that some people 
will have to undergo a more dangerous procedure which will increase 
their chances of them being killed, maimed, or sterilized.

                              {time}  1245

  I hope that my colleagues will work to prevent this result.
  This debate should not be about politics, it should be about the 
woman who may need this procedure to protect her health and 
reproductive ability but may not have access to it because Congress 
decided that it should play doctor and politics. Let us put women's 
health first and defeat the bill.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this partial-
birth abortion ban.
  Mr. Speaker, this has little to do with Roe versus Wade, little to do 
with politics, little to do with the majority versus the minority, and 
everything to do with banning a procedure that is, in effect, legalized 
infanticide. Let there be no doubt about what we are trying to do in 
this Chamber today.
  Mr. Speaker, 295 of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, and men 
and women, some pro-choice and pro-life, have come together not to get 
into the rhetoric and the hyperbole but to try to do something to cut 
down on the number of abortions that take place in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, the AMA has now endorsed this bill that I strongly 
support. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who has taken on big 
tobacco and fought for little children, has said this about partial-
birth abortion: ``Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary 
to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, 
this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.''
  Mr. Speaker, I think that states pretty much the case, and 64 
Republicans and Democrats out of 100 in the Senate have agreed. We need 
to talk, Mr. Speaker, about ways to eliminate the large number of 
abortions in this country, to reduce the number of abortions in this 
country. We need to do it by passing this bill. We need to do it by 
talking about funding birth control methods.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard that we have voted already four times on 
this act. We should vote 40 times or 400 times to pass what is morally, 
ethically, and, I think, soundly politically the right thing to do. Let 
us pass this bill today and put it on the President's desk.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Ms. DeGette].
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, last spring a woman came to my office with 
her infant son whom she loved, and you could tell the love was obvious. 
Tragically for this woman, this was not the first pregnancy she had 
had. She had lost a previous baby months along in the cycle through no 
fault of her own, and she had used this procedure after consulting with 
her husband, her family, and her doctor.
  Mr. Speaker, not very many women are forced to use this procedure. In 
1992, the most recent year for which we have statistics, only 0.4 
percent of all abortions take place after 26 weeks when this procedure 
becomes necessary. Like the women in my office, like the women that my 
colleagues have talked about today, every single one of these women who 
are facing these late-term procedures are facing threats to their life 
or threats to their health or they are carrying a fetus with severe 
abnormalities that will not survive. That is why the American College 
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes this legislation even now, 
and that is why this piece of legislation is unconstitutional and 
should not be passed.
  Mr. Speaker, the terms are so vague that like the 10 States that have 
struck down the State legislation, this legislation will not be held 
constitutional and should not be passed.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a question as a new Member of Congress. Why are 
we voting on this piece of legislation again and again and again and 
again and again? It is all we have talked about in my first 10 months 
of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason is clear. In the 1998 elections, the 
Republicans think they can saddle people with this. The women of 
America are not going to accept it. The women of America need to make 
this decision in consultation

[[Page H8653]]

with their families and their doctors. Let us move beyond this to 
rational family planning so we can avoid unwanted pregnancies.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
1122, the partial-birth abortion ban. I have spoken out repeatedly in 
support of this ban, and I will continue to do so however long it takes 
to get the necessary two-thirds majority in both the House and the 
Senate so that we can override the President's veto.
  It was in 1993 when I was still practicing medicine when I first read 
about this procedure. It was published in the American Medical News. I 
had seen all of my patients for the day, I was sitting down at my desk, 
and, frankly, I was shocked and amazed that in a country that is 
supposed to be founded on the principle that we are endowed by our 
Creator with the right to life, that a procedure this barbaric would be 
legal and, furthermore, that some people who purport to be legal 
scholars would argue that it is somehow protected in our Constitution. 
It is nowhere mentioned anywhere in our Constitution.
  I want to address two very important issues; No. 1, these so-called 
tragic circumstances. In that original article that appeared in the AMA 
News, the originators of this procedure admitted that 85 percent of the 
time it was on perfectly healthy fetuses and in the other 15 percent, 
the majority of them were cleft lip and cleft palate.
  How many millions of Americans in this country who have a loved one 
with cleft lip or cleft palate would like to know that this kind of 
barbaric procedure could be done on a baby for a deformity as simple as 
that? It is absolutely tragic to me to think that somebody would make 
that kind of an argument.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not finished. I also want to discuss this other so-
called health exception. They had a health exception in California 
prior to Roe versus Wade, and they did thousands and thousands of 
abortions every year because we all know, I am a doctor, any doctor can 
say it is needed for health. That is a loophole you can drive a truck 
through.
  This procedure is barbaric. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote 
in support of the bill.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the doctor, he is also a 
Congressman and there is a constitutional basis for this measure that 
we have. Look at the fifth amendment, then read the U.S. Supreme Court 
decision.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a member of the committee.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are physicians and 
people of many walks of life in this House, but though we come with 
different experiences, we do not stand for the thousands upon thousands 
of physicians across the Nation who deal with patients, in this 
instance women, women who are expecting and looking forward to the 
blessed day. As we debate this issue, none of us can stand in their 
shoes.
  I am saddened that we now come for the fourth time to deny the 
opportunity for a mother who wants to bear children again to be 
protected and to have her health protected in a private and personal 
and religious and family decision.
  Take the story of Eileen Sullivan, someone who brought tears to my 
eyes as she testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary. I 
ask you to stand in her shoes. Eileen Sullivan from Los Angeles, a 
Catholic with 10 brothers and sisters, Eileen had long awaited her 
first child. She and her husband were devastated at 26 weeks of 
pregnancy that testing revealed overwhelming fetal abnormalities in 
their son, including an improperly formed brain, a malformed heart, no 
lungs, and nonfunctioning liver.
  Mr. Speaker, did she rush to have an abortion? No, she did not. She 
took test after test after test. And I imagine, as a devout Catholic, 
she prayed and prayed and prayed, and yet the prognosis was: ``Eileen, 
if you and your husband want a healthy child, we must terminate this 
pregnancy.'' In the law of the land, she had the right to choose. She 
did not voluntarily do so.
  So Eileen had a procedure, a medical procedure for which, under this 
bill, the physician would be held liable and accountable, upon which 
the family decision, the prayer that was made that helped them to 
decide this.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply say this is a bad piece of legislation. It is 
difficult to decide, but I would ask that my colleagues vote on behalf 
of Eileen. Vote against this legislation and give life.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1122. The issue 
raised by this legislation is a very difficult and emotional issue for 
all of us here in this body. It is one that I, and I am sure many of my 
colleagues, have given a great deal of consideration. There is no 
question, however, but that I must oppose this legislation.
  H.R. 1122 raises many concerns, but two in particular are worthy of 
discussion. First, as currently written this legislation is 
unconstitutional. Second, the legislation makes no provision for the 
protection of a mother's health.
  Last May, the Senate passed H.R. 1122, the Late-Term Abortion Ban Act 
only making three minor amendments to the House-passed version. We are 
asked today to agree to these amendments. The Senate amendments are 
purely cosmetic, however, and do nothing to answer my concerns. While 
these amendments provide the physician additional protections, they do 
nothing to extend protection to the health and well-bring of American 
women and their families. As currently written, H.R. 1122 provides no 
exception to protect a woman's health and makes no distinction between 
abortions before and after fetal viability.
  As a Member of Congress, I have, sworn to uphold the U.S. 
Constitution. H.R. 1122 is unconstitutional and we, in Congress, should 
not attempt to undercut the law of the land as set forth by the U.S. 
Supreme Court in Roe versus Wade.
  In Roe versus Wade, the Supreme Court held that women had a privacy 
interest in electing to have an abortion. This right is qualified, 
however, and so most be balanced against the State's interest in 
protecting prenatal life. The Court determined that post-viability the 
State has a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life and may ban 
abortion, except when necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. 
In line with this decision, 41 States have already passed bans on late 
term abortions, except where the life or health of the mother is 
involved.
  In Planned Parenthood versus Casey, the Court held that the States 
may not limit a woman's right to an abortion prior to viability when it 
places an undue burden on that right. An undue burden is one that has 
``the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path 
of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.''
  H.R. 1122 in its current form interferes with a woman's access to the 
abortion procedure that her doctor has determined to be safest for her, 
and so unduly burdens her right to choose. It is therefore inconsistent 
with the principles outlined in Roe and Casey, which have been 
reaffirmed by every subsequent Supreme Court on this issue, and so is 
unconstitutional.
  Partial birth abortions are performed because a physician, with the 
benefit of his expertise and experience, determines that, given a 
woman's particular circumstances, this procedure is the safest 
available to her; that this is the procedure most likely to preserve 
her health and her future fertility. Only a doctor can make this 
determination. We, in Congress, should not interfere with the close 
relationship that exists between a doctor and his or her patient.
  It is a tragic fact that sometimes a mother's health is threatened by 
the abnormalities of the fetus that she is carrying. She is faced with 
a terrible decision whether to carry a fetus suffering from fatal 
anomalies to term and in so doing jeopardize her own health and future 
fertility or whether to abort the fetus and preserve her chances of 
bringing a later healthy life into the world.
  When a woman is faced with this type of painful circumstance, it is 
one that she should face free from Government interference. This is too 
intimate, too personal, and too fragile a decision to be a choice made 
by the Government. We should protect the sanctity of the woman's right 
to privacy and of the home by letting this choice remain in her hands. 
Families and their physicians, not politicians, should make these 
difficult decisions. It is a decision that should be between a woman, 
her spiritual leader and her god.
  Proponents of the partial birth abortion ban maintain that this 
procedure is never the only option to save the life or preserve the 
health of a woman. ACOG, The American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists stated that while this procedure may not be the only 
option to save a woman's life and health, it may be the best option.

[[Page H8654]]

  I am reminded of the story of King Solomon. In that story Solomon is 
faced with deciding between two women who claim that a certain child is 
their own. The power and authority to determine to whom the child 
belongs rests with King Solomon, but he gave the mothers the power to 
choose the child's fate and from this decision the life of the child 
was saved.
  Many of my colleagues have worked hard to amend the ban so that it 
would provide an exception to protect the mother when the continuation 
of the pregnancy would put her physical health at risk. This was 
rejected. Without such a provision, I am unable to support this ban. 
For these reasons I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 
1122.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, ``We the People of the United States, in 
Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic 
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general 
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our 
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United 
States of America.''
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a whole lot about the American College of 
Surgeons and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 
That is the same organization that refused to suggest that women who 
are pregnant get an HIV test, knowing that in fact it could prevent HIV 
infection from the baby, the same organization that ruled we should do 
that after this Congress stood up and morally said they should do it. 
So, they do not lead on what is right and wrong. They follow. They have 
already proven that they follow.
  We have a choice. The child just described by the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], there was a choice there. There was a choice 
that the doctor could end a life early through a very gruesome and 
horrible procedure, or there was a choice that a baby could have been 
delivered and died in its mother's and father's arms. We do have 
choices. There is no question about it.
  Mr. Speaker, who is looking out for the infant girls that consume 85 
percent of the elective abortions used on this procedure?
  The thing that saddens me most about this debate, and I am tired of 
the debate as well, is we will not be truthful about what we are 
talking about. The truth is that this is never needed. The truth is 
that we have a lot of people who believe, and are respected in their 
belief, that women ought to be able to abort any baby any time for any 
reason.
  The unfortunate thing is that there is not the integrity in this 
House, or the honesty, to stand up and say that is what I believe. So, 
therefore, we use disinformation, deceit, and untruth to cover what the 
real facts of the issues are.
  So, Mr. Speaker, when, in fact, Members decide on whether or not we 
ought to be involved in banning a procedure that the vast majority of 
physicians in this country know is not needed to accomplish the 
purpose, they should ask themselves whether we are leaders or we are 
followers.
  I do stand in the shoes every weekend and defend women and their 
rights and care for them and their problem pregnancies. I do know what 
I am talking about. It is a moral, ethical issue. It has nothing to do 
with the practice of medicine.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], a distinguished member of the committee.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Roemer] said he is for this bill because he wants to reduce the 
number of abortions. This bill, of course, does not by any means reduce 
the number of abortions. It does say doctors cannot do one procedure 
versus another. This deals with one procedure. It does not purport even 
to ban abortion under any circumstances but simply says, do not use 
this procedure.
  Now, when we ban one procedure and allow the others, we make this one 
mistake. On this bill, the majority has consistently refused to accept 
an amendment which says this procedure can be used if the doctor 
believes it is necessary to avoid grievous physical harm to the mother.
  So I ask my colleagues to understand, this is a bill which says that 
even if there will be grievous physical harm in the opinion of the 
doctor, he has to use a different procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, I am told the chairman of the committee, who is here, 
has said: Well, but we cannot just restrict it. Once we say ``health,'' 
the Court will automatically say ``mental health.'' That is simply, 
wholly untrue.
  Mr. Speaker, when the Court interpreted health to mean mental health, 
they were not talking about a statute which specifically modified 
health with the word ``physical.'' The Court has held that there is a 
general constitutional right of the health of the mother to be taken 
into account, and they have defined that as mental or physical.

                              {time}  1300

  If that governs, the whole bill is out. Understand, if that 
interpretation governs, then all health, all abortions are out. We are 
apparently believing here, the majority, that we cannot ban this 
particular procedure and make an exception. What we are saying is, OK, 
we will make an exception to the exception and if grievous physical 
harm will come, then it will be allowed. No, there is no argument that 
the court would not recognize that. The court has defined health when 
it was unmodified. There is not a single decision that suggests that 
the court will look at the words ``grievous physical health 
consequences'' and interpret those away. So either we must believe that 
the court will impose health, including mental health, across the 
board, or we must recognize the validity of this.
  Without the amendments we have offered, by refusing to let us offer 
an amendment, the majority says not simply that we will ban the 
procedure but we will ban it even to avoid, if it is necessary, to 
avoid grievous physical health consequences. That is what this is 
about, whether or not grievous physical health consequences should be 
allowed into the bill.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, 
abortion is violence against children. The partial-birth method is an 
extraordinarily heinous manifestation of this violence. Today those who 
kill babies by jamming scissors in a baby's skull followed by insertion 
of a hose to suck out their brains have an unfettered license to kill.
  Nurse Brenda Pratt Schaffer, who worked with the infamous Dr. 
Haskell, described the end of the life of one 6-month-old in this way, 
and I quote:
  ``The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping 
together. He was kicking his feet. All the while his little head was 
still stuck inside. Dr. Haskell took a pair of scissors and inserted 
them into the back of the baby's head. Then he stuck the high-powered 
suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. I almost 
threw up,'' she said, ``as I watched him do these things.''
  To mitigate this cruelty, Mr. Speaker, this cruelty to children, some 
States, about 15, have already enacted partial-birth bans into law but 
litigation has mostly precluded enforcement. Other States are 
considering such a ban. And in Florida, Missouri, and my own State of 
New Jersey, where at least 1,500 of these partial-birth abortions are 
done each year in northern New Jersey alone, the bills were sadly 
vetoed by our Governors.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States needs a national law to ban this 
violence against kids. Today we can do that. Today we can revoke the 
license to kill babies in this fashion and protect at least some kids 
from this kiddie holocaust called abortion on demand. If the President 
vetoes the bill, he and he alone empowers abortionists to murder kids 
in this hideous way.
  Let's not forget, Mr. Speaker, the leadership of the pro-abortion 
movement has been savvy in masking the violence and cruelty to baby 
girls and boys killed by abortion in general and this method in 
particular. But they have been exposed once again and by one of their 
own.
  Members please recall that Ron Fitzsimmons, the ex-director of the 
National Coalition of Abortion Providers, has publicly confessed that 
he ``lied through (his) teeth'' when he told a TV interviewer, 
according to the New York Times, that partial-birth abortion was ``used 
rarely and only on women whose lives

[[Page H8655]]

were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged.''
  According to the AMA News and the New York Times, Mr. Fitzsimmons now 
says that his party line defense of this method of abortion was a 
deliberate lie--and 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.
  Most in the media believed and amplified as true the falsehoods and 
lies put out by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Alan 
Guttmacher Institute, the ACLU, NARAL, the National Family Planning and 
Reproductive Health Association, NOW, the National Republican Coalition 
for Choice, People for the American Way, Population Action 
International, Zero Population Growth [ZPG], to name a few signers of 
an October 25, 1995 letter to Members of Congress which stated:

       This surgical procedure is used only in rare cases, fewer 
     than 500 per year. It is most often performed in the case of 
     wanted pregnancies gone tragically wrong, when a family 
     learns late in pregnancy of severe fetal anomalies or a 
     medical condition that threatens the pregnant woman's life or 
     health.

  These groups lied to us. And it's not the first time these groups 
have lied to us. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist and a 
founder of NARAL has said lying and junk science are commonplace in the 
pro-abortion movement. It is the way they sell abortion to a gullible 
public. Dr. Nathanson said that in the early days, they absolutely lied 
about the number of illegal abortions; today, he says they lie about 
the link of abortion and breast cancer--there is a link; and they lie 
about the safety of abortion. And of course, the big lie on partial-
birth abortion has been exposed. The procedure is not rare--it is 
common--and it is used with devastating consequences on perfectly 
healthy mothers and babies.
  In the debate on partial-birth abortion last year, remember the big 
lie about how anesthesia kills the baby? That falsehood was exposed by 
the president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Dr. Norig 
Ellison, who explained before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

       I believe this . . . to be entirely inaccurate. I am deeply 
     concerned, moreover, that the widespread publicity given to 
     Dr. McMahon's testimony may cause pregnant women to delay 
     necessary and perhaps life-saving medical procedures, totally 
     unrelated to the birthing process, due to misinformation 
     regarding the effect of anesthetics on the fetus. . . .
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, of those 15 States that have passed the law 
the gentleman advocates, 9 have been found to be unconstitutional.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, we can learn from our elders. Our first 
citizens, native Americans, have a phrase that I think bears repeating 
in this place: Do not judge a person until you have walked a mile in 
their moccasins.
  So I say to the Members who are pushing this ban, they are probably 
very sincere but most of them do not know what they are talking about. 
They do not know the agony of a late failed pregnancy. They do not know 
in what circumstances a physician may have to counsel a family in order 
to protect the health of a particular woman. They do not know about the 
choices families must make when they have to choose between a woman's 
health and a badly damaged fetus.
  So, my colleagues, I say it is time we step into the shoes of those 
women, of those families, of those doctors. It is time politicians stop 
making decisions that are best made by families, by women, by 
physicians. It is time to get the Government off the backs of our 
citizens. It is time to listen to the 38,000 Members of the American 
College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, because they do know and they are 
opposed to this ban. I would urge my colleagues to join those doctors 
and oppose this ban.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair the time 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] 
has 10 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] 
has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we continue to oppose this bill for two very simple 
reasons. It endangers the life and health of American women. It is 
blatantly unconstitutional. The antichoice majority has trumpeted the 
AMA's support for this bill, but the changes made to this bill to win 
the AMA's support do nothing, nothing to protect the lives and health 
of American women.
  Again, I want to remind my colleagues, whether one believes that the 
Constitution should say more or should say less, the point is that 10 
courts have struck down, even, or changed abortion bans like the one 
before us because they violate Roe versus Wade. Ten courts have spoken. 
Why will not Congress listen? This bill tramples on Roe versus Wade and 
is a direct assault on the constitutionally protected right to choose.
  Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. As a mother, as a new grandmother, 
I respect and celebrate life with every ounce of my soul, with every 
ounce of my being. I find it very offensive when year after year my 
colleagues and I will go to the leadership, will go to the Committee on 
Rules and say, let us craft a bill that the President will sign. Let us 
craft a bill that will focus on postviability abortions, will disallow 
postviability abortions except as they protect the health and the life 
of the mother.
  But unfortunately, the majority again, time and again, will not work 
with us to help craft this bill. So year after year this procedure, 
which they say they abhor, continues when we want to make sure that 
postviability we are eliminating a procedure except to save the life 
and health of the mother, which is consistent with Roe versus Wade.
  I would ask my colleagues again, work with us. Let us craft the 
language that the President can sign, and we can get this enacted into 
law, that we feel is reasonable and that will protect a woman's life 
and health.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership, not just today but year after year, on this subject matter. 
I am hoping somebody raises the fact that the AMA has switched its 
position, because I have got the letter they sent Newt Gingrich on the 
same day they switched their position, detailing what they wanted for 
the switch.
  That AMA, that is the American Medical Association. And what did they 
want? Well, they wanted some compromises. They detailed a plan to stall 
or minimize any cuts that might come from the physicians' incomes. Let 
us not wax lyrical about the AMA is now on the side of the 
conservatives in this country. They just sold out, very elementary, 
dear Watson, it happens in the Congress and in the body politic with 
great frequency.
  Once again, we all know that the issue is about the health of the 
mother. The opponents keep trying to hope they can override our 
resistance. The Supreme Court still states what the law of the land is, 
and for all the doctors on the Republican side that do not know the 
fifth amendment is severely connected to this subject matter, believe 
me, it is.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking minority 
leader.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman raised an issue 
about proposed amendments dealing with the mother's health. The problem 
with the amendment that the President has proposed which would deal 
with the mother's health is that it would first not deal with the vast 
majority of partial-birth abortions at all, because it is restricted on 
its face to postviability abortions and most partial-birth abortions 
occur before viability. Furthermore, the President's proposal would 
give unfettered discretion to the abortionist to decide.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would rather the 
gentleman speak on his time since I have limited time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time and for her extraordinary leadership on a very hard bill to manage 
and carry, but one that has to be carried.
  I want to make three points. One goes to the futility of this bill 
based on

[[Page H8656]]

its unconstitutionality. The other goes to who gets protected. The 
final goes to the intolerable trade-off that this bill forces and that 
cannot be condoned under any circumstances. Why are we here on a bill 
that is unconstitutional on its face?
  We have not had to deal with the exception for health of the mother 
in the Hyde amendment and other matters because we had not focused on 
postviability. But the Supreme Court has been clear. I want to quote 
the language, that a bill is unconstitutional if it ``fails to require 
that maternal health be the physician's paramount concern.'' That is 
where the Catholic church has always been. That is where all of us have 
always been, if ever there is that kind of tragic decision to be made.
  We must face that now as we have not had to because we are focusing 
postviability.
  Why are we here on a bill that protects physicians and not women? The 
doctors got language that satisfied them and jumped ship. I thought 
they were supposed to have a paramount duty to their patients as well.
  They better watch out, because there is language in this amendment 
that I think leaves them in jeopardy as well. It must be found that no 
other medical procedure would suffice. I can imagine that going before 
committee of doctors in the hospital, particularly when we consider how 
reluctant physicians are ever to use this procedure.
  And finally, this forces the intolerable tradeoff of mother for 
fetus. It comes down on the side of fetus. It requires sacrifice of the 
mother because whatever the state of her health, it cannot be taken 
into consideration. For these reasons, I do not see how in good faith 
this body can pass this bill.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, again I just want to reach out to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hyde], and ask them to work with us to craft a bill that would 
protect the health and the life of the mother. We could have had a bill 
today. This was first introduced in 1995.

                              {time}  1315

  It was vetoed by the President. It came back five times. We could 
have a bill today.
  And I want the gentleman to know that I respect the passion of the 
opponents on this issue just as I hope the gentleman would respect the 
passion of women such as myself who have given birth to beautiful 
children, who is now a grandmother and respects life and celebrates 
life. I wish the gentleman would have more respect for those women like 
Claudia Addes, who suffered the pain of losing a child when she 
desperately wanted a child.
  I am saying to the gentleman, with respect, let us sit down and work 
out a bill that would protect those women, protect all the women who 
may face this very difficult tragedy in their lives at some future 
time. I hope no one close to the gentleman ever faces that decision.
  Let us work together, let us craft the bill, protect the women and 
the families who have to face these difficult decisions and, Mr. 
Speaker, let us not put a doctor in the terrible position of making 
this decision that he does not or she does not feel is the correct 
decision.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time to answer the 
gentlewoman from New York. She is a wonderful person. She is a sincere 
person. Her motives are most noble, and I wish everyone on her side 
would understand this is not politics. This is a tough issue for 
anybody.
  We happen to believe in protecting the unborn child. We happen to 
think the health of the mother does not equal the life of the unborn. 
That is not a good trade-off. That is where we get stuck.
  We hear from doctors, like Dr. Hearn, who wrote the book on abortion, 
that if a woman is pregnant she is in a life-threatening condition. Do 
we want him to make the decision on what is grievous physical health? 
We have problems, but it is not that we are not willing to negotiate on 
them.
  Mr. Speaker, abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. The 
abortion license was an invention by seven Supreme Court justices. But 
cruel and unusual punishment is in the Constitution. And by any 
definition, partial-birth abortion is cruel and unusual punishment, 
punishment for the capital crime of being unloved and unwanted.
  Every abortion happens over somebody's dead body. We hear a lot about 
the woman, and we should, but we do not hear a scintilla about the 
little girl baby, the little boy baby whose heart is beating wildly and 
who is flailing, their having been almost delivered and who want to 
live. We do not hear about them.
  Every abortion results in a violent death, whether the abortionist 
uses dilatation and curettage or the chemical warfare of saline 
injection which scalds the little baby to death that is called salting 
out, or RU-486 chemical warfare against the little baby, or the 
infamous suction machine, abortion means violent death in the womb. But 
partial-birth abortion adds a gruesome dimension to this cruelty by 
reaching the level, or should I say the depth, of infanticide.
  A word about truth. America is committed to truth. ``We hold these 
truths,'' that great Virginian Jefferson wrote. ``The truth will make 
you free,'' we tell our children. How many times have we sung the 
majestic words from the ``Battle Hymn of the Republic,'' ``His truth 
goes marching on?'' Well, Mr. Speaker, the whole case for partial-birth 
abortion is based on deception and untruth.
  And that is not surprising, because the history of the pro-abortion 
rights movement is replete with one falsehood after another. And I 
frankly get tired of being lied to.
  Bernard Nathanson, a doctor who ran the biggest abortion clinic in 
America, wrote a book called ``Aborting America.'' And he said ``I 
cannot escape the notion that I have presided over 60,000 abortions.'' 
But concerning the number of back-alley abortions, he said we made the 
figures up. He is a founder of the National Abortion Rights Action 
League. He and a man named Lawrence Lader concocted figures because 
they sounded good about back alley abortions as a justification for 
their organization dedicated to legalizing abortion. ``We made up the 
figure 10,000 because it had a nice round sound to it.'' That was a 
lie.
  Roe versus Wade was a lie. Norma Jean Corvey, who was Jane Roe, said 
she never was raped. The case was presented as a rape situation to make 
it more poignant. But later, when she became pro-life, she admitted 
that she lied; that she was not raped. So the foundation of Roe versus 
Wade was a lie.
  Then we have partial-birth abortions, where Planned Parenthood told 
us that anesthesia kills the little baby. The baby does not feel pain. 
The mother is anesthetized. The anesthesiologists came in and went 
ballistic. They said enough anesthesia to kill the little baby would 
kill the mother. ``We do not want people to shy away from taking 
anesthesia'' they told us. That is a lie.
  Then, of course, we have the famous Ron Fitzsimmons, executive 
director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who in an 
article in the American Medical News said on the night in November 
1995, when he was on ``Nightline,'' he ``lied through his teeth.'' He 
lied through his teeth about how many of these abortions are done and 
at what time in the pregnancy. So deception. Lies. I get tired of it.
  Now, we are not stopping abortion, as the gentlewoman points out, but 
we are stopping a loathsome, grisly by-product of the mindset that 
treats people as things and as objects. We are saying halt this cruelty 
now and not tomorrow.
  I want to address the President, if I may presume to do so. On June 
12 in 1987 at the Brandenburg Gate, Ronald Reagan challenged General 
Secretary Gorbachev. He said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' 
And as a result of that wall finally coming down, a new birth of 
freedom, that wonderful phrase, suddenly appeared for millions of 
people.

[[Page H8657]]

  Well, there is another challenge that I would like to make, and I do 
not presume to be Ronald Reagan nor do I ascribe the President as Mr. 
Gorbachev, but the challenge is as noteworthy as the Berlin Wall, and 
that is because it means life and death to thousands of endangered tiny 
defenseless humans, sign this bill, Mr. President, then the prayers of 
millions and even the inaudible prayers of the little yet-to-be-born 
will be answered.
  Mr. President, stand between them and a gruesome death. Cruel and 
unusual punishment. We can provide them with life and with hope, and I 
ask the President if he has not been lied to enough by these people who 
are so fearful that the abortion license will be encapsulated a little 
bit more than it is, be a little less free, a little less wanton. They 
are so fearful of that, they will not give an inch.
  This procedure is inhuman. Animals of the forest would not treat 
their young this way. So all we say is we have been lied to enough. 
This does not impair abortions. They will go on merrily every day. We 
will get to them.
  Mr. President, sign this bill.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this 
legislation which bans partial-birth abortions. Over the past year, the 
House expressed its opposition to this procedure: not once, not twice, 
but three times. The decision before us today is simple: do we ban this 
procedure which is incredibly inhumane and incredibly brutal? I join 
the National Right to Life Committee, the U.S. Catholic Conference, the 
American Medical Association, and many others in saying no to partial-
birth abortions.
  According to Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National 
Coalition of Abortion Providers, and other sources, it is estimated 
that partial-birth abortions are performed about 5,000 times. Do we 
really want to sanction the termination, no the killing of 5,000 
babies? Have we given up on these unborn babies before they have a 
chance to live? Sadly, the majority of partial-birth abortions are 
performed in the 5th and 6th months of pregnancy, on healthy babies of 
healthy mothers. What has happened to our sense of morality and our 
sensibility?
  The arguments that this bill does not take into account the health of 
the mother are not valid. This bill is narrowly crafted to outlaw only 
partial-birth abortions; the bill still leaves in place other 
legitimate medical procedures to protect the life and health of the 
mother. In September 1996, the former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop 
issued a statement that ``partial-birth abortions is never medically 
necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the 
contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.''
  Mr. Speaker, the babies involved in this procedure are alive and 
experience great pain when they are subjected to partial-birth 
abortions. As a civilized society, we should outlaw this medical 
procedure; we should not be engaged in sanctioning the killing of human 
beings; once again, we should say no to partial-birth abortions. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting the ban on partial-birth 
abortions.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I do not favor late-term abortions and feel 
none should be allowed, whatever the procedure, unless necessary to 
preserve the life of the mother or prevent serious consequences to her 
health. The bill we are considering today, like a similar bill I 
opposed last year, not only fails to address all late-term abortions, 
but it does not protect a woman from the severe health consequences 
which may be associated with tragic pregnancies.
  For the majority, the repeated consideration of this legislation is 
not about reducing abortions in America. If that were the goal, the 
majority would allow for the consideration of a bill which protects a 
mother's health, as required by the Supreme Court in post-viability 
abortions, and a bill would be passed by this House and signed into law 
by the President.
  We are asking the majority to be sensitive to and protective of the 
health of mothers who find themselves in medically and personally 
tragic situations. I am voting against moving the previous question so 
that we can consider the Hoyer amendment and ban all late-term 
abortions while ensuring the protection of a woman's life and health.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 
1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. H.R. 1122 has been amended in 
an effort to clarify the bill's intentions. Yet, H.R. 1122 fails to 
provide women with the basic protections established in Roe versus 
Wade.
  The new definition of what constitutes a partial-birth abortion is 
vague, convoluted, and confusing. What is a partial delivery of 
substantial proportion, for example? Doctors and lawyers will not have 
a clear idea of what is being banned.
  H.R. 1122 gives any accused physician the right to have his or her 
conduct reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial 
begins. The provision does not give the State Medical Boards the 
authority to issue advisory positions. The provision only allows the 
State Medical Boards to comment on the doctor's conduct with respect to 
the necessity of saving the life of the woman. They cannot comment on 
whether or not the procedure meets the definition of a partial-birth 
abortion. Possible conflict of interest in the makeup of the medical 
boards is not addressed. The provision falsely implies that doctors 
have some type of protection; they do not. Doctors still have to go 
through criminal proceedings.
  In Roe versus Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a woman's 
constitutional right of choice. Roe also established that this right is 
limited after viability, at which point States may ban abortion as long 
as an exception is provided for cases in which the woman's life or 
health is at risk. H.R. 1122 fails to make the distinction between pre- 
and post-viability abortion.
  Forty States and the District of Columbia ban post-viability 
abortions. The U.S. Supreme Court has struck a balance between a 
woman's right to choose and the protection of potential life. H.R. 1122 
unfortunately does not clarify the distinction.
  Intervening in a lawful medical decision is inappropriate, ill 
advised, and dangerous. It is always in order to question laws and 
write legislation which may alter existing statutes. H.R. 1122 does not 
address what is now lawful in a manner which meets the necessary 
criteria for changing the law.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1122 as 
amended by the Senate.
  This bill would help to fight what Pope John Paul recently called an 
abominable crime and the shame of humanity--the crime of abortion.
  On the Pope's recent visit to Brazil he asked, ``How many times did 
we hear Mother Teresa's lips proclaim the priceless value of life from 
the moment of conception in the maternal womb? Death has silenced those 
lips, but Mother Teresa's message in favor of life continues to be more 
vigilant and convincing than ever.''
  It is my belief that our creator will not hold this Nation guiltless 
for our contribution to the killing of the unborn. Indeed, the Bible 
tells us in Proverbs that God hates ``hands that shed innocent blood.'' 
Certainly, there can be none more innocent than the unborn.
  And this procedure is particularly horrific. It has been called the 
closest thing to infanticide. I will not go into the gruesome details 
of this procedure but I believe that it is telling that many who 
support abortion on demand, do not support this procedure.
  There are few moral questions that come before this body that are 
more clear-cut and simple than this one. The question we will vote on 
today is whether your support a method of abortion that involves 
partially delivering a baby and then killing it, or do you support 
allowing a newborn to live. Pure and simple.
  I am proud to stand today with those who support life. I urge my 
colleagues to honor the words of the Pope and Mother Teresa by 
supporting life--and to vote in favor of the ban on partial birth 
abortions.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake. The amendments that 
we are considering here today do not make this bill acceptable. They do 
not provide the critical exception necessary to protect women in tragic 
circumstances from serious harm to their health.
  This bill is still unconstitutional, and is still in direct violation 
of the fundamental rights described in Roe versus Wade.
  This bill would still criminalize doctors for using their best 
medical judgment to protect the lives and health of women.
  This bill would still give a father who abused or abandoned a woman 
the right to sue her if she and her doctor determine that she needs to 
have this procedure. Not only does this bill infringe on the 
constitutional right to choose, but it rewards abusive fathers.
  This bill is still fundamentally flawed, because it is based on the 
principle that politicians, not doctors, ought to make medical 
judgments about what procedures are appropriate.
  I would urge every pro-choice Member who may be inclined to vote for 
this bill to carefully consider exactly why they are pro-choice. If you 
are pro-choice because you believe it is a woman's decision, not the 
government's, about whether or not to have an abortion, then I urge you 
to vote against this bill. If you believe that sometimes abortions are 
necessary to protect the health of a woman, then you ought to vote 
against this bill. If you believe that doctors should not be denied the 
option of using a medical procedure that they deem appropriate, then 
you must reject this bill. If you believe in the fundamental principles 
of Roe

[[Page H8658]]

versus Wade, then you must not support this bill which severely 
restricts a woman's right to choose to have an abortion of a fetus that 
cannot live outside of the womb.
  This bill, unfortunately, is not about protecting women's lives. 
Instead, it is the result of a multimillion dollar campaign aimed at 
fundamentally limiting women's rights. If this bill becomes law, it 
will most certainly be challenged in the courts and the result may be a 
reexamination of Roe versus Wade. So I hope my pro-choice colleagues, 
who may be inclined to vote for this bill, realize that they are in 
effect asking the Supreme Court to reexamine the issues resolved by Roe 
versus Wade.
  Make no mistake, this bill is not about one particular procedure. It 
is about the right to choose. I urge my colleagues to defend a woman's 
right to choose, and to reject this dangerous bill.
  And let me close by quoting a letter from a woman in New York City 
who faced a tragic situation involving a fetus with a severely deformed 
heart, and who would have been affected by this legislation had it 
already become law. She writes,

       You must hear our voices before you vote on this misguided 
     bill, as well as the voices of other mothers and fathers who 
     weep over their empty cribs. We are not bad people. We are 
     extremely unfortunate, suffering families trying to cope with 
     personal tragedies. Please don't deepen our wounds by taking 
     away our choices. Please vote against H.R. 1122.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is the fifth time that the House will vote on this issue. 
Unfortunately, it won't be the last. As my colleagues know, the 
President will veto this legislation because it does not contain an 
exception to ensure the health of American women. So we will be back 
here again next year.
  We have repeatedly tried to offer a health amendment to the bill on 
the floor of this House--and the Republican leadership has consistently 
blocked us. We offered to sit down and work with the Republican 
leadership to craft a health exception that we could all accept. The 
Republican leadership refused. The President will sign this legislation 
if it contains a health exception--but the Republican leadership won't 
even give us the chance to put one in.
  The GOP leadership doesn't want to ban this procedure--it wants a 
political issue. Republicans would rather debate this again and again 
and again rather than send the President a bill that he can sign into 
law. But don't take my word for it--take Ralph Reed's. On May 21, he 
told the New York Times that this was a quote, winning gold-plated 
issue going into the 1996 elections.
  No pious words about the defenseless unborn, no handwringing over 
moral decay. Just a winning gold-plated issue. This is pure politics, 
plain and simple.
  My colleagues, you will hear a great deal today about the AMA and its 
endorsement of this bill. You will hear that changes made to this bill 
in the Senate have improved it.
  Nonsense. The Senate amendments are window dressing that provide 
cover to doctors while leaving women out in the cold. Sadly, the AMA 
struck a very cynical bargain with the Republican leadership to endorse 
this bill.
  Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, the AMA is not the final word on this issue. 
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, ACOG, the 
health professionals who actually deliver babies and care for women, 
oppose this legislation. And let's not forget, my colleagues, that the 
AMA represents doctors--not women. So while the changes made to this 
bill in the Senate may make it marginally more difficult to throw 
doctors in jail, they will do nothing--absolutely nothing--to save the 
lives or preserve the health of pregnant women.
  So, we are left with the same bill that we have voted on four times 
before. The same bill that puts the lives and health of women at risk. 
The same bill that violates the Constitution and tramples on the rights 
of American women.
  Women from around the Nation testified before Congress that this 
procedure protected their lives and health. Women like Tammy Watts, 
Claudia Addes, and Maureen Britel. Women who would have been harmed by 
this bill.
  These women desperately wanted to have children. They had purchased 
baby clothes. They had picked out names. They did not abort because of 
a headache. They did not choose to abort because their prom dress did 
not fit. They chose to become mothers and only terminated their 
pregnancies because of tragic circumstances.
  Who in this body will stand in judgment of them? Which of you will 
stand in the operating room and limit their options? Who, at the 
agonizing moment, will decide--the Congress of the United States or the 
women and families of America?
  The courts have been very clear on this question, and have 
consistently found bills of this type to be unconstitutional.
  Lawsuits have been filed in 10 States challenging State statutes 
similar to the bill before us. In 10 States, courts have ruled that the 
laws were unconstitutional and struck them down, limited their scope, 
or enjoined them.
  Mr. Speaker, when the House debated this issue in March the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida assured us that this bill was 
constitutional and consistent with Roe. Since then this ban has been 
struck down, changed, or enjoined on constitutional grounds in 10 
States. Ten States. States have moved ahead and passed these bans--and 
they have been struck down, again and again. The courts have clearly 
spoken: This bill violates a woman's constitutionally protected right 
to choose.
  Unfortunately, we know that the anti-Choice majority won't allow a 
little thing like the Constitution to stand in the way of their 
abortion ban. Mr. Speaker, the anti-Choice Republican leadership has 
been waging war on the reproductive rights of American women since 
taking over this House in 1994. In the last Congress alone the GOP 
leadership voted to limit abortion rights more than 50 separate times--
a new record. It is clear that the Republican leadership wants to ban 
every abortion, procedure by procedure, trimester by trimester. They 
want to roll back Roe versus Wade and push women into the back alley.
  We have a different vision. We will continue to fight to ensure that 
women are able to obtain safe, legal abortions. And we will work to 
reduce the number of abortions by providing women with greater access 
to family planning and contraceptives. We will work to empower women to 
make responsible choices about their own bodies.
  The Republicans have chosen to make our bodies their battlegrounds. 
They will not succeed.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for printing in the Record:

                                 American Medical Association,

                                        Chicago, IL, May 19, 1997.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Gingrich: On behalf of the 300,000 physician 
     and medical student members of the American Medical 
     Association (AMA), I am writing to express our strong concern 
     with the level of Medicare payment cuts proposed in the 
     budget agreement with the Administration, as well as many of 
     the specific physician payment changes included in the 
     Administration's 1998 budget proposal.
       A balanced budget and solvent Medicare Trust Fund are 
     important goals which the AMA supports. However, we strongly 
     object to reducing Medicare spending by $115 billion over 
     five years almost entirely from cuts to physicians and other 
     providers. It is clear that physician spending is not the 
     problem with Medicare's overall growth. Physician spending 
     growth is already well below overall Medicare growth and 
     below the growth rate for any other major sector of Medicare. 
     The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that under 
     current law, physician payments per service will fall below 
     current payment rates, while hospital and other Part B 
     services are projected to rise. In fact, physicians are the 
     only provider group who already face payment reductions in 
     Medicare under current law.
       More importantly, the combination of payment cuts under 
     consideration, combined with pending payment changes, could 
     seriously undermine the quality of care physicians deliver to 
     Medicare patients and ultimately reduce beneficiary access to 
     care, as low payment rates have resulted in access problems 
     for Medicaid patients. CBO stated last month that ``if 
     payments are too tightly limited, beneficiaries could 
     encounter difficulties in getting care from some providers or 
     might not be able to obtain certain services.'' It is 
     critical that any proposed budget cuts be considered in 
     conjunction with other already pending physician payment 
     changes, including the implementation of the resource-based 
     practice expense, as discussed below.
       The AMA believes Congress and the Administration should 
     enact fundamental reforms to the Medicare program, such as 
     those included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, instead of 
     merely reducing payments and making minor modifications to 
     the program. We have developed a comprehensive proposal, 
     Transforming Medicare, which addresses both the short and 
     long-term problems with Medicare, without relying on failsafe 
     or lookback provisions. Our plan modernizes traditional 
     Medicare, eliminating the need for Medigap, while preserving 
     the security and quality of care beneficiaries now receive. 
     It would create a broad menu of health plan choices of 
     Medicare beneficiaries to choose from, including Provider 
     Sponsored Organizations (PSOs) and Medical Savings Accounts 
     (MSAs). It includes needed regulatory reforms to fraud and 
     abuse and self-referral provisions, as well as cost-saving 
     professional liability reforms. It also ensures that a 
     healthy Medicare is available for future generations. We 
     are pleased to enclose a copy of our Transforming Medicare 
     proposal for your consideration.


                 improving the physician payment system

       There is widespread agreement that the current method of 
     updating physician payments, the Medicare Volume Performance

[[Page H8659]]

     Standard (MVPS) system, is fundamentally flawed. The 
     Congress, the Administration, and the Physician Payment 
     Review Commission (PPRC) have all proposed replace the 
     current MVPS update formula with a sustainable growth rate 
     (SGR) formula, which uses a real per capita gross domestic 
     product (GDP) formula to adjust for volume and intensity.
       In general, the AMA supports implementing the SGR approach 
     as a needed correction for the MVPS. Fundamentally, the 
     question for policymakers is determining the level of annual 
     spending growth for physician services that best balances 
     patient care needs and the federal budget. Under the current 
     MVPS physician update formula, Medicare payments for 
     physicians are actually projected to be rolled back, while 
     hospital and other provider payment rates go up. Although 
     these non-physician services are unlikely to see their full 
     projected increases, their budget savings will be charged 
     against this rising baseline, while further savings from 
     physicians require even deeper cuts.
       Physician practice costs, as measured by the Medicare 
     Economic Index (MEI), continue to rise while physician 
     reimbursement under Medicare is projected to fall. While we 
     believe that MEI is the appropriate goal for physician 
     updates, we understand that budgetary constraints may not 
     presently allow for a full MEI update for physicians. We 
     would be willing to accept GDP+2 under an SGR system, as was 
     provided in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, if there were 
     assurances that this could be increased to cover MEI once the 
     necessary Medicare savings were obtained. In contrast, under 
     GDP+0 as the Administration proposes, physician payments 
     would continue to fall well below MEI, as the chart below 
     indicates.
       Physicians are willing to do their part to put Medicare's 
     fiscal house in order, as we have repeatedly done in the 
     past. Physicians, who accounted for 32% of combined physician 
     and hospital Medicare spending from 1987 to 1993, absorbed 
     43% of Medicare provider cuts over the same time. We are only 
     asking for the opportunity to have Medicare payments keep 
     up with the costs of providing care to Medicare 
     beneficiaries, and are willing to accept the challenge of 
     maintaining low volume growth. Budget reconciliation for 
     Medicare should reflect the fact that physician spending 
     is under better control than any other major Medicare 
     segment. Physicians should not be penalized for having 
     done the right thing in the first place.


                        Single Conversion Factor

       The Administration's 1998 budget also proposes moving to a 
     single conversion factor and payment update for the physician 
     fee schedule. Medicare payments to physicians are set through 
     a conversion factor that translates the resource-based 
     relative value scale (RBRVS) into dollars. Currently, there 
     is a conversion factor for each of three types of physician 
     services: for 1997 these are set at $40.96 for surgery; 
     $35.77 for primary care; and $33.85 for other services, as 
     well as a separate conversion factor for anesthesiologists 
     discussed below.
       The AMA strongly supports the move to a single conversion 
     factor, in conjunction with improvements to the flawed MVPS 
     formula. However, we believe Congress must set the single 
     conversion factor at an adequate level and provide for a 
     reasonable transition in order to minimize the negative 
     financial impact on surgical services and reduce potential 
     financial disincentives for providing care for Medicare 
     patients. We believe that, at a minimum, the conversion 
     factor for 1998 should be set no lower than the default 
     update under the current MVPS formula, and a single 
     conversion factor should be fully phased-in no earlier than 
     the year 2000.
       Medicare reimburses anesthesiologists by a different 
     conversion factor methodology than that applied to other 
     physicians services. For 1997, the anesthesiology conversion 
     factor is set at $16.68, and is therefore about 46% of the 
     $36.24 average of the other three 1997 conversion factors. 
     For purposes of determining the annual update, anesthesiology 
     was assigned to the ``other nonsurgical'' category until 1996 
     when it was moved to the ``surgical'' category. The 
     Administration has proposed to reduce the anesthesiology 
     conversion factor by the same percentage as surgical services 
     when surgery, primary care and other nonsurgical services are 
     combined into a single conversion factor. However, that would 
     clearly be inequitable since the cumulative increases over 
     the life of the RBRVS are almost 17% higher for surgery than 
     for anesthesiology. The AMA therefore supports PPRC's 
     recommendation that in the move to a single conversion 
     factor, the current ratio (46:100) should be maintained 
     between the anesthesiology conversion factor and the new 
     single conversion factor for other specialties.


                    Resource-Based Practice Expense

       As mentioned above, many physicians face additional extreme 
     payment reductions due to the implementation of the resource-
     based practice expense in 1998. The Social Security Act 
     Amendments of 1994 requires the Health Care Financing 
     Administration (HCFA) to implement a ``resource-based'' 
     practice expense component of the Medicare fee schedule by 
     January 1, 1998. That is, the payment for this component--
     which represents over 40 percent of the payment for physician 
     services--is to be based on the actual expenses incurred in 
     delivering each service. Currently, the practice expense 
     allowance is derived from a formula based on the prior 
     reasonable charge payment system.
       The AMA supports resource-based practice expenses so long 
     as they reflect actual practice expenses, but is seeking a 
     one-year extension of the implementation date. The 1994 
     legislation said that HCFA should ``recognize the staff, 
     equipment, and supplies used in the provision of various 
     medical and surgical services in various settings.'' HCFA 
     contracted with Abt Associates to conduct a two-part study 
     of 3,000 physician practices expenses. When the survey was 
     pulled back due to poor response rates, HCFA was left 
     without adequate data to meet the intent of the law.
       HCFA is now relying primarily on data derived from clinical 
     practice expert panels, or CPEPs. Early review of the 
     recently-released CPEP findings suggest that they contain a 
     number of errors. HCFA has even rejected certain direct costs 
     that its expert panels found were part of the cost of surgery 
     when doctors supply their own staff and supplies in hospital 
     operating rooms. The AMA and medical specialties are working 
     to identify and correct those flaws but more time is needed.
       The cuts HCFA projected in January are so extreme that they 
     would nearly eliminate practice cost reimbursement for some 
     procedures and specialties. Many inpatient surgical 
     procedures and two specialties could suffer cuts of more than 
     80% in their practice expense values, and at least 40% in 
     their total payments. Under HCFA's projections, payments for 
     many surgical procedures would fall below Medicaid levels. 
     Thus, there is good reason to fear that if Medicare makes 
     deep cuts in its payments for complex procedures, doctors 
     performing these services may find that they can no longer 
     afford to accept Medicare patients.
       PPRC has advocated that HCFA should use a three year 
     transition in phasing-in the new resource-based practice 
     expense values in order to reduce the impact. The AMA 
     believes that using a transition is pointless if the 
     underlying data and methodology is invalid. Others argue that 
     any problems can be corrected later through a refinement 
     process similar to the one used when new work values were 
     implemented in 1992. We strongly oppose this approach because 
     we believe it is inappropriate to attempt to correct 
     fundamentally flawed data. HCFA invested nearly three times 
     as much time and money on the design of new work values as it 
     has spent to revise practice expense values. Whereas 
     thousands of doctors were surveyed to come up with the work 
     values, in the end, there has been no broad survey of 
     practice expenses.
       Opponents of an extension also maintain that there is no 
     point in waiting another year because the demise of the 
     indirect cost survey shows that it will be possible to 
     collect this information independently. We believe that with 
     another year, HCFA could develop alternative relative values 
     that bear some relationship to actual practice expenses. 
     There would be adequate time to validate and correct the CPEP 
     data. Better indirect cost allocation methodologies could be 
     developed and tested. Missing data could be collected, 
     perhaps through an expansion of existing surveys.
       The AMA urges Congress to: (1) extend the resource-based 
     practice expense implementation date by one year to January 
     1, 1999; (2) require HCFA to develop a new proposed rule to 
     be published at least 8 months before implementation, with 90 
     days for public comments; (3) direct HCFA to use a new 
     approach to data and methodology which recognizes all staff, 
     equipment and supplies (not just those which can be tied to 
     specific procedures); (4) require that the proposed rule 
     include detailed impact projections which compare proposed 
     payment amounts to data on actual physician practice 
     expenses; and (5) require HCFA to consult with organizations 
     representing physicians regarding resource-based practice 
     expense methodology and data in order to ensure that 
     sufficient input has been received from the affected 
     physician community.


                     Other Physician Payment Issues

                         Assistants at Surgery

       The Administration is proposing to save $400 million over 
     the next five years by making a single payment for surgery. 
     This means that the additional payment Medicare now makes for 
     a physician assisting the principal surgeon in performing an 
     operation would no longer be made. Instead, the payment 
     amount for the operation would have to be split between the 
     principal surgeon and the assistant at surgery. We believe 
     this provision dangerously imposes financial disincentives 
     for the use of an assistant at surgery and inappropriately 
     interferes with physician medical decision-making. The AMA 
     supports efforts to develop guidelines for the appropriate 
     use of assistants at surgery, but believes that patient care 
     should not be compromised in search of Medicare savings. The 
     professional judgment of surgeons regarding the need for an 
     assistant at surgery for a specific patient must be 
     recognized, even for operations in which an assistant 
     ordinarily may not be required. Congress has considered and 
     rejected this proposal in the past, and we urge you to reject 
     it again.

                        High Cost Medical Staff

       The Administration proposes to reduce Medicare payments for 
     so-called high cost hospital medical staffs. This proposal is 
     not new. In its 1994 Annual Report to Congress, the PPRC 
     concluded that such a ``provision's disadvantages . . . 
     outweigh its advantages.'' The Commission went on to note 
     that such a

[[Page H8660]]

     provision: ``May have unintended effects on physician 
     behavior, including a shifting of admissions away from 
     hospitals with the high-cost designation. The provision would 
     also increase the cost and complexity [of] administering the 
     Medicare program.''
       In some cases, the physicians responsible for a hospital's 
     medical staff being designated ``high cost'' for a given year 
     might simply take their patients elsewhere, leaving the 
     remaining physicians on staff to bear the financial 
     consequences, with potentially serious repercussions for the 
     affected hospital. Finally, the proposal could 
     inappropriately reduce payments to physicians who treat a 
     sicker patient population. In the absence of a sound 
     methodology to measure differences in the severity of illness 
     of the patient population being treated by the medical staff, 
     it is too risky to put in place a formula-driven process that 
     could inappropriately lower payments for treating patients 
     who are more expensive to treat because they are sicker.

                         Centers of Excellence

       The Administration proposes to expand what it calls the 
     ``Centers of Excellence'' demonstration project, under which 
     Medicare makes a bundled payment to participating entities 
     covering both physician and facility services for selected 
     conditions, such as coronary artery bypass operations. We are 
     concerned that these demonstration projects do not offer a 
     potential increase in quality and cost-effectiveness, and 
     that these ``centers of excellence'' in fact emphasize cost-
     cutting rather than excellence. We also find the name 
     ``centers of excellence'' inappropriate in that it implies 
     that institutions participating in this payment arrangement 
     provide higher quality services than non-participating 
     institutions.

                        Outpatient Drug Payments

       The Administration also proposes to reduce payments for 
     drugs administered in physicians' offices. Today Medicare 
     pays the average wholesale price for these drugs, which 
     include a number of therapies for treating patients who are 
     critically ill with cancer and kidney disease.
       Under the President's plan, however, payment would be based 
     on a complicated ``actual acquisition cost'' methodology. 
     Specifically, payment would be based on the lowest price that 
     the physician paid for that type of drug in the previous six 
     month. In addition, payment would be capped at the national 
     median of prices paid for the drug in a period 6 to 18 months 
     earlier. In other words, the so-called ``actual acquisition 
     cost'' has nothing to do with the ``actual cost'' of the drug 
     provided to an individual patient.
       By definition, the half of all practices above the national 
     median will be paid less than their purchase price for these 
     drugs. Since all payments will be based on prices that are 
     six to 18 months old, physicians will be forced to undertake 
     a burdensome new tracking system and to absorb any increases 
     imposed by drug manufacturers or wholesalers during that 
     time. More important, patients could suffer as physicians, 
     unable to recover the price of the drug let alone other 
     associated costs, might be forced to discontinue providing 
     the drug in their offices, requiring patients to have their 
     drugs administered in hospitals where costs to the patient 
     and Medicare may be higher. For all these reasons, the AMA 
     urges Congress to reject this unfair and impractical 
     proposal.


                            fraud and abuse

       The AMA strongly opposes the Administration's efforts to 
     repeal the fraud and abuse safeguards included in the Health 
     Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). 
     Specifically, the Administration has proposed to eliminate 
     the obligation of the Departments of Justice and Health and 
     Human Services to issue advisory opinions on the anti-
     kickback statute, reduce the government's burden of proof for 
     civil monetary penalties, and repeal the risk sharing 
     exception to the anti-kickback statute.
       Fraud and abuse has no place in medical practice and the 
     AMA is committed to setting the highest ethical standards for 
     the profession. The incidence of misconduct can be greatly 
     reduced by setting standards of appropriate behavior, 
     disseminating this information widely, and designing and 
     implementing programs to facilitate compliance. HIPAA 
     provides new and much needed guidance by requiring HHS to 
     establish mechanisms to modify existing safe harbors, issue 
     advisory opinions, and issue special fraud alerts. This 
     guidance will allow physicians, hospitals and insurers to 
     develop efficient and effective integrated delivery systems 
     that will benefit Medicare, Medicaid and the private health 
     care marketplace.
       In the area of civil monetary penalties (CMPs), HIPAA 
     requires that the Inspector General establish that the 
     physician either acted ``in deliberate ignorance of the truth 
     or falsity of the information.'' The AMA, along with many 
     Members of Congress, fought long and hard to preserve this 
     clarified standard in the face of strong opposition. This 
     standard makes the burden of proof for imposing CMPs under 
     HIPAA identical to the standard used in the federal False 
     Claims Act, and there is no reason that two enforcement tools 
     designed to address the same fraudulent behavior should have 
     different standards of proof. Moreover, this section provides 
     important protection for physicians who may unwittingly 
     engage in behavior that is impermissible.
       The AMA also strongly opposes the Administration's proposal 
     to eliminate the new risk sharing exception to the anti-
     kickback law provided in HIPAA. The expansion of managed care 
     in today's health care market requires additional exceptions 
     to the anti-kickback laws so that more flexibility in 
     marketing practices and contractual arrangements is afforded. 
     The future of the Medicare and Medicaid programs depends upon 
     the ability of competing plans to offer quality alternatives 
     to the existing program. HIPAA provides a much needed 
     exception to the anti-kickback law for certain risk-
     sharing arrangements which will facilitate the development 
     of innovative and cost-effective integrated delivery 
     systems.
       Finally, the AMA has concerns with some of the proposals in 
     the Administration's ``Medicare/Medicaid Waste, Fraud and 
     Abuse Act of 1997.'' While we have not seen any legislative 
     language on the proposals, we are concerned that some of the 
     provisions are overreaching and could impose unwarranted 
     penalties on unwary physicians.


                        Physician Self-Referral

       The AMA supports reforms for physician self-referral laws 
     (Stark I and II) to remove barriers to arrangements among 
     physicians in the developing health care marketplace, 
     including the development of Provider Sponsored Networks 
     (PSNs). These laws were designed for the fee-for-service 
     world, but now deter the development of risk sharing 
     arrangements where there is no incentive for inappropriate 
     referrals. In addition, inappropriate referrals of Medicare 
     and Medicaid patients to outside laboratories and other 
     designated diagnostic facilities are already prohibited under 
     the federal anti-kickback law. Congress recognized the need 
     for these reforms when it passed the Balanced Budget Act of 
     1995. We ask you to include these same needed reforms in 
     Medicare legislation in the 105th Congress.


                    Provider Sponsored Organizations

       The AMA strongly supports federal legislation which would 
     facilitate the development of Provider Sponsored 
     Organizations (PSOs). We believe PSOs should be subject to 
     federally developed standards which account for the 
     distinctions between provider networks that deliver services 
     directly and insurers that purchase health care services and 
     resell them, while also providing tough consumer protection 
     standards for patients. By developing a federal framework, 
     Congress will continue its precedent of encouraging 
     innovative new ventures that stimulate competition and 
     provide cost-saving efficiencies. The 1973 HMO Act created a 
     federal regulatory scheme for HMOs, preempting state laws 
     that interfered with their formation and operation. HMOs 
     argued successfully then, as did the Blue Cross plans 
     previously, that they represented different products and 
     should be evaluated by different standards. In addition, we 
     support PSO standards which allow as much flexibility as 
     possible in the ownership and management structure of a PSO 
     and which do not favor one provider group over another.


                     Professional Liability Reform

       Medicare reform should also include the professional 
     liability reforms that have been so successful in California, 
     including a limit on non-economic damages of $250,000. Health 
     care liability costs are built into the Medicare system in 
     the form of physicians' and hospitals' liability premiums, 
     defensive medicine, and coverage for distributors of 
     medicines, blood services, and medical devices. In 1995, CBO 
     scored $200 million in federal government savings over 7 
     years in physician malpractice premium costs alone, without 
     considering similar hospital, HMO and medical supplier 
     liability costs. These are millions of dollars that could go 
     to patient care and extending the life of the HI Trust fund, 
     instead of paying attorney fees and insurance premiums.


                       Graduate Medical Education

       The AMA believes that because all patients benefit from our 
     nation's graduate medical education (GME) system, the private 
     sector should participate in the funding of GME through the 
     development of an ``all payer'' fund. In addition, GME funds 
     should be carved out of Medicare's payments to HMOs (i.e. 
     AAPCC), with all direct medical education (DME) funds paid 
     directly to the entity that incurs the costs of training, 
     whether that entity is a medical school, hospital, nursing 
     home, or ambulatory clinic. However, federal support in 
     the form of the indirect medical education (IME) 
     adjustment should continue to be provided to teaching 
     hospitals which incur higher costs than non-teaching 
     hospitals in providing training and unreimbursed patient 
     care. Finally, a national physician workforce advisory 
     body should be established to monitor and periodically 
     assess the adequacy of the size and specialty composition 
     of the physician workforce in the context of the changing 
     needs of the evolving health care delivery system and 
     evolving patterns of professional practice by non-
     physician health professionals.


                               conclusion

       Congress can no longer postpone tackling fundamental reform 
     of the Medicare program. Failure to do so is certain to prove 
     even more costly for the millions of Americans who expect to 
     be able to rely on this program in the future, as well as 
     those working Americans who are called upon to help finance 
     it. Chopping away at physician payments in hopes of getting 
     more services for less money will ultimately divorce the 
     Medicare system and its beneficiaries from the mainstream of 
     American medical care.

[[Page H8661]]

       However Medicare is reformed, it will be our overriding 
     goal to ensure that the change not damage the essential 
     elements of the patient-physician relationship. Above all, 
     reform should not break the bond of trust between a patient 
     and physician that makes medicine unique.
       We look forward to working with you and the 105th Congress 
     to enact urgently needed structural reforms to protect 
     Medicare for our seniors and save it for our children.
           Sincerely,
                                               P. John Seward, MD.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the Senate 
amendment to the Late-Term Abortion Ban Act, H.R. 1122. I oppose this 
legislation because, like the House-passed bill, it is fundamentally 
flawed and would put at risk the life, health, and fertility of women 
facing one of the most difficult, anguished, and personal decisions 
imaginable.
  First, let me say that I oppose late-term abortions except, as the 
U.S. Supreme Court requires, when necessary to protect the life or 
health of a woman. Both the House and Senate passed bills fall woefully 
short of meeting this critical standard. This legislation provides only 
a partial exception to protect the life of a woman, and even this 
partial exception may be invoked only under a very narrow set of 
circumstances.
  Furthermore, it fails to provide a clear, humane, and necessary 
exception when a woman faces a severe threat to her health and 
specifically her ability to have children in the future. This bill bans 
abortion both before and after viability, and continues to criminalize 
physicians for using their best medical judgement to protect the lives 
and health of women. I know the proponents continue to argue that the 
Senate amendment protects physicians from criminal sanctions in lieu of 
State action, but it is only a fig leaf which does not preclude 
criminal prosecution. In short, this legislation sets the dangerous 
precedent of allowing government to dictate medical procedures and 
practices to doctors, taking away the authority of a physician to 
select the best medical procedure for protecting a woman's life and 
health. This bill substitutes a politician's judgement for that of a 
physician.
  Many of us are troubled by the procedure H.R. 1122 seeks to outlaw, 
yet believe it is dangerous and wrong to ban a medical procedure that 
in some circumstances represents the best hope for a woman to avoid 
serious risk to her health, including her future ability to bear 
children. Therefore we have attempted to offer a compromise that is 
consistent with the Supreme Court's rulings on the difficult issue of 
abortion. This bipartisan bill, which was never debated on the floor--
in fact was never allowed to be debated--would ban all late-term 
abortions, not just one procedure, and also provide a necessary 
exception when there is a serious threat to the woman's life or health. 
This compromise bill is consistent with the Supreme Court's Roe versus 
Wade decision and subsequent rulings. It is consistent with the State 
law in 40 States, including my State of Texas, as well as the District 
of Columbia. In Texas, as in other States, late-term abortions are 
banned except when the woman's life or health is threatened. I believe 
this bipartisan compromise is consistent with the views of the American 
people. And I believe it is the right and humane thing to do. That is 
the approach this legislation should take as well, but I guess it is 
not the politic thing to do and that is why we are at this point today. 
The legislation before us today is, unfortunately, not about stopping a 
particular procedure, but about politics.
  We will once again hear a lot of debate today about how often this 
procedure is performed. But this issue isn't about numbers. It is about 
each individual woman who faces the awful choice of what to do if she 
is told that her life, health, or ability to bear children is 
endangered by her pregnancy. The decision about what medical treatment 
and procedures are best for that woman should be made by her and her 
doctor, not the Congress of the United States.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, imagine that you--or your wife--or your 
daughter, learned when she is 7 months pregnant that the fetus had a 
lethal neurological disorder and all of its vital organs were 
atrophying. After consulting with specialists and being told that the 
pregnancy is seriously jeopardizing the mother's health, and possibly 
her life, your are told that an intact D&E procedure has the best 
chance of preserving the mother's health and her ability to become 
pregnant again.
  Or imagine that the mother is 32 weeks pregnant when she learns that 
the baby has no brain. The fetus has no chance of survival. The mother 
is diabetic, so a Cesarian section and induced labor are more dangerous 
to her health and reproductive capacity than an intact D&E procedure.
  Would you want 435 politicians to tell you--or your wife--or your 
daughter, the type of medical procedure she could use in this painful 
situation? Should Congress be able to determine whether a woman will 
lose her capacity to reproduce and bear children? Well that is 
precisely the situation that Coreen Costello and Vicki Stella were in. 
And if we adopt this bill, we will be telling many, many other women 
that Washington knows best when it comes to terminating pregnancies 
that have resulted in tragic circumstances.
  H.R. 1122 is unconstitutional, because they contain no exception 
providing for the physical health of the mother. The Senate amendments 
on which we are voting today do nothing to correct that problem with 
the bill. Roe versus Wade, and its progeny, clearly hold that a woman's 
right to protect her life and health, in the context of reproductive 
choice, trumps the government, as big brother, in its desire to 
regulate.
  And recently, several similar State statutes banning this procedure 
have been found unconstitutional. In fact, in my home State of 
Michigan, on July 31, 1997, Judge Gerald Rosen struck down Michigan's 
partial-birth abortion ban, finding that the definition of partial-
birth was so vague that doctors lacked notice as to what abortion 
procedures were banned. Moreover, the court found that the State law 
unduly burdened women's ability to obtain an abortion. It is clear that 
H.R. 1122 and the Senate amendments violate that well established 
constitutional law long-settled by Roe.
  The majority will try to tell you that this bill is OK, because they 
have the support of the American Medical Association. But don't let 
them fool you. The AMA had consistently remained neutral on this issue, 
and did not take a position on the bill when it was first introduced in 
1995. And in mid-May of this year, the AMA stated that it did ``not 
support any [abortion] legislative proposals at this time.''
  Yet, within weeks, the AMA board changed its position. Just like 
that. Why? Well, no one will really ever knew, but isn't it surprising 
that the very day that the AMA announced its switcheroo, its executive 
vice president, P. John Seward, sent an eight-page letter to Newt 
Gingrich that lists the AMA requests in the budget negotiations 
concerning Medicare spending. In that letter, the AMA laid out a 
detailed plan to stall or minimize any cuts that might come from 
physicians. All on the same day that the organization decided suddenly 
to support the partial-birth abortion bill. Well, well. So don't let 
them fool you. There was no substantive reason the AMA decided to vote 
for the bill. It was just another one of those political games.
  Yesterday, the minority testified before the Rules Committee seeking 
an open rule that would make in order two amendments dealing with the 
physical health of the mother. But our request was denied, and neither 
amendment was made in order. The first alternative, offered by Mr. 
Hoyer, would ban post-viability abortions unless a physician certifies 
that continuing of the pregnancy would threaten the woman's life or 
risk grievous injury to her physical health. The second alternative, an 
amendment offered by Ms. Lowey, would provide that the restriction on 
abortion procedures in the bill would apply only to post-viability 
abortions and include exceptions to preserve the life of the woman or 
to avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman.
  Both of these amendments comport with the standard established in Roe 
that the health of the mother should not be jeopardized in any 
circumstance. Either of them would have made the underlying amendment 
constitutional and the President would have signed it. But the 
President cannot, and will not, sign an unconstitutional bill that does 
not protect a mother's health, and has promised to veto this 
legislation if it passes.
  Of course, the Republican leadership has little interest in 
developing a credible and serious constitutional proposal that could be 
signed into law. Instead, they prefer a wedge issue that can divide the 
American people. That's why they wouldn't make a single amendment 
concerning health in order.
  But H.R. 1122 has no health exception, and we are led to believe that 
the reason is because its authors have determined that under no 
possible condition is a mother's health--no matter how serious--to be 
equated with the potential life of a fetus. To them, the partial birth 
abortion ban is merely a means of preventing any and all abortions, 
even where the mother's health is in jeopardy. But the reality is, the 
bill will do absolutely nothing to reduce the number of abortions 
performed in this country. Zero. It will only criminalize physicians 
for pursuing the safest alternative in dealing with a very painful, 
difficult, and terrifying circumstance when a pregnancy has gone bad, 
and the mother's physical health is in jeopardy.
  Let's take the politicians out of this intensely personal issue. When 
it comes to a woman's life or health, Washington doesn't always know 
best.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. For over 2 years the abortion 
industry has conducted a systematic campaign of falsehoods and 
misinformation about the nature of partial-birth abortion.

[[Page H8662]]

  Apologists for this abominable practice have attempted to raise a fog 
of mendacity during our deliberations.
  Today we will hear that partial-birth abortions are extremely rare--
only about 500 are performed in a year. We will also hear that partial-
birth abortions are safe, and absolutely necessary to protect a woman's 
health.
  Mr. Speaker, this information is completely false and an outright 
lie.
  The truth can't be changed no matter how many times it's 
misrepresented. I would like to remind my colleagues of a leading 
abortion advocate, along with others in the abortion industry, who 
knowingly lied about the real reasons women seek partial-birth 
abortions.
  Mr. Speaker, this procedure is medieval, and so is the logic of those 
who advocate and apologize for it.
  The fog has been pierced and the truth has come to light. What 
everyone can clearly see today, Mr. Speaker, is that partial-birth is a 
practice that exposes abortion for what it truly is, the killing of an 
infant.
  This debate is not about when life begins, for the infants targeted 
by this procedure are mostly alive. This debate is over a matter of 
inches.
  And Mr. Speaker, I submit that the constitutional right to life has 
jurisdiction over those inches.
  Our system of laws, our American heritage, is based on the idea that 
people have certain God-given rights. Those rights are life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness.
  As lawmakers we have a responsibility to protect the lives of our 
citizens, in this case, the very youngest, most vulnerable of American 
citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to stand against this hideous, repugnant 
practice.
  Let us stand up for a good principle and let us stop partial-birth 
abortion now.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
this oppressive, extremist legislation. The American College of 
Obstetrics and Gynecology has called this ban ``inappropriate, ill-
advised, and dangerous.'' I call it an outright assault on women's 
lives.
  Let's put this in perspective. There were more than 50 anti-choice 
votes in the 104th Congress. There have been over 20 anti-choice votes 
thus far in the 105th Congress. Choice opponents have said they intend 
to ban abortion procedure by procedure, and this bill is another step 
down that slippery slope.
  President Clinton has said he would support a ban that includes 
exceptions to protect the life and health of the mother. Why is it so 
hard for so-called pro-life zealots to allow for compassionate 
exceptions, exceptions that could save a mother's life and perhaps her 
future fertility? The Rules Committee, by taking away our right to 
amend, refuses to allow us to include anything that would provide the 
safest, most compassionate way to handle a pregnancy that has no hope.
  Let me remind my colleagues of the recent real-life trauma suffered 
by Coreen Costello. She came to Congress to tell her heart-wrenching 
story. A conservative, pro-life mother of two, Coreen and her family 
were devastated to learn that a lethal disease left their much-wanted, 
unborn daughter unable to survive outside the womb. Coreen attempted to 
carry the pregnancy to term, but the fetus' body stiffened and wedged 
dangerously into her body. Under this bill, the critical intact D&E 
procedure could not have been performed. This bill would have 
sacrificed Coreen Costello and her future fertility to the politics of 
anti-choice extremists.
  The issue is not how many women undergo this procedure, but how many 
women who, like Coreen Costello, have no other choice but this 
particular procedure. The few women who need this procedure deserve our 
support and sympathy, not congressionally mandated limitations on their 
medical choices. By not permitting compassionate exceptions to the ban 
on the late-term procedure, this bill slams the door on a family's 
future, on a mother's health, and on a mother's life.
  This Congress has absolutely no business passing legal judgments on 
life-saving medical procedures. This Congress has absolutely no 
business interfering in the decisions made by a woman and her doctor. 
We should be outraged.
  This Congress dares to make criminals of doctors who have taken an 
oath to save lives. This Congress dares to presume it can legislate 
this profoundly intimate decision. This Congress dares to protect the 
natural death of a fetus over the life of a woman, a mother, a wife. 
Congress has no place in this decision, and no place in these 
tragedies.
  Mr. Speaker, we must protect women's constitutional right to choose. 
We must protect women's right to life. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 262, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Canady].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 296, 
nays 132, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 500]

                               YEAS--296

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--132

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gilman
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kolbe
     Lantos

[[Page H8663]]


     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Morella
     Nadler
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Hilliard
     Lewis (KY)
     Payne
     Schiff

                              {time}  1349

  Messrs. FARR of California, TORRES, FORD, and Ms. SANCHEZ changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island and Mr. PAXON changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________