[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 97 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5951-H5953]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CORRECTION OF CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF JULY 16, 1998, PAGES 5719, 5720 
 AND 5721, DURING DEBATE ON H.R. 4104, TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

                                 ______
                                 


              amendment offered by mr. smith of new jersey

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:


[[Page H5952]]


       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
       Add at the end of the bill:
       Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, no funds in this 
     Act may be used to require any contract to include a term for 
     coverage of abortifacients.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) reserves a 
point of order.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, due to the lateness of the 
hour, I do not intend on taking the full 5 minutes.
  Let me make it very clear that part of the problem with the Lowey 
amendment was that it did not define contraception. Many of us have 
been concerned that the pro-abortion lobby and the pro-abortion 
organizations over the years have tried to fudge the line of 
demarcation between fertilization post- and pre-fertilization. Many of 
the chemicals, many of the devices that are now employed that are 
permitted under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program do indeed 
result in many abortions, newly created human lives that are not 
permitted to implant in their mother's womb.
  In a nutshell, my amendment is designed to clarify that if we are 
indeed going to force all of the Federal providers of medical care, the 
HMOs and all the providers as a condition of receiving reimbursement 
for all of their prescriptions, whether it be for penicillin or any 
other drug, that they have, to provide ``a provision for contraceptive 
coverage'', let us at least make it clear that the gentlelady's 
language excludes abortion-inducing chemicals. That is what my 
amendment very simply seeks to do.
  Earlier in the day we pointed out during the debate, that while RU-
486 isn't legal and, hopefully, never will be there are officials of 
Planned Parenthood who are already talking about it as a morning after 
pill. RU486 is baby pesticide and destroys life, the newly created 
life, somewhere along the line up to the 7th week. This is a Federal 
funding of early abortion but many Members of Congress remain 
uninformed of that fact. I say with regret, that some abortifacients 
like IUDs can be provided by the health care providers under the 
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The question is should they 
be forced to. This says no one is going to be forced to do it. It is a 
conscience type amendment. Still the plain language of Mrs. Lowey's 
amendment only stipulates ``a provision for contraceptive coverage''--a 
much, much, weaker version than the amendment she offered in her 
Appropriations Committee. Clearly, under her amendment, if a plan 
merely provided condoms or birth control pills, that would satisfy the 
obligation created by the amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman clarify for me and for 
others, when he says to include ``a term for coverage,'' what does that 
phrase mean?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for asking the 
question. It says very simply that a health care plan would not have to 
include those devices and chemicals that may have the effect of an 
abortifacient. Under my amendment it will not be mandatory. it will not 
be forced upon the HMOs and upon the health care providers even though 
the language of Mrs. Lowey's amendment require only ``a provision for 
contraceptive coverage'' to satisfy the requirement.
  Mr. HOYER. Am I correct then that the amendment means, ``a term for 
coverage'' would mean the term that refers to the abortifacients?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If I understand the gentleman's question 
that is correct.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his clarification.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
to engage the gentleman from New Jersey in a colloquy.
  I would like to ask the gentleman to define further his amendment. 
Based upon the information that we have, the FDA has approved five 
methods of contraception. This is the established definition of 
contraception. It has nothing to do with RU-486 although, 
unfortunately, there were some letters sent out saying it did. RU-486 
is not included among the five methods of contraception. It has nothing 
to do with abortion. There have been debates that have been going on 
among us, in the country, about when does life begin.
  This takes some serious discussion, and I am sure that we can have 
some serious debates about this issue, but today what we are talking 
about very simply is the five established methods of contraception that 
have been improved by the FDA, nothing to do with abortion, nothing to 
do with RU-486.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the gentlewoman would yield, let me just 
ask the gentlewoman, because this will help me in responding, her 
definition of contraception. Is it before fertilization occurs or is it 
before implantation in the uterus?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I am sorry. Will the gentleman repeat?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Part of the problem we have with the 
gentlewoman's first amendment, as well as the amendment that was 
offered and just passed, is a definitional one. How do you define 
contraception? How do define pregnancy?
  For some, it is implantation. For some, it is fertilization.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Contraception by definition should mean 
before a new life has come into being. There are many who want to blur 
that line and say that chemicals affect the implementation or even 
after that.
  Mrs. LOWEY. If I may reclaim my time, could the gentleman explain 
whether this includes the pill?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. This will have to be determined. There is a 
body of evidence suggesting that IUDs, for example, may have the 
impact, and many women are unaware of this, may have the impact of 
preventing implantation.
  What my amendment says, that is still permissible under Federal 
Employees Health Benefit Program but not mandated.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, if I might ask the gentleman, I 
believe in response to my question as to whether the pill would be 
included, since the pill is one of the five methods of approving 
contraception from the FDA, you seem to be questioning this and I would 
ask the gentleman, if you are not sure whether the pill is an 
established method of contraception, what would the plans determine?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me just respond that there are several 
schools of thought as to what the operation is as to what actually 
occurs.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, would the gentleman consider the IUD 
a form of contraception? This is and approved method of contraception. 
Or would you consider the IUD as abortifacient?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me make it very clear there has to be a 
determination made, and maybe it is about time, with all of the 
resources at our disposal, we really came to a firm conclusion as to 
how some of these chemicals and how the IUD actually works, because, 
again, even Planned Parenthood and others will say on their web page 
that one of the consequences of the IUD may indeed be preventative of 
implantation .
  Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, does the gentleman include the 
diaphragm as a form of contraception?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. No. As far as I know, that has never been an 
abortifacient.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I seems to me the gentleman has questions about the pill, 
questions about the diaphragm, questions abut the IUD, and I assume the 
gentleman has questions about Depo--Provera and Norplant.
  Let me say this, there are five established methods of contraception. 
If the gentleman supports the amendment to not cover abortion, then you 
are saying that contraception cannot be covered; no method of 
contraception can be covered.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Not at all. Right now the HMOs, and all of 
the health care providers under the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
program, if they choose, can provide any of those methods that you 
mentioned, from

[[Page H5953]]

IUDs to Depo-Provera. What your amendment, or what the thrust of your 
original amendment was to force them to do it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, I just want to make it clear to my 
colleague that the gentleman from New Jersey, it appears to me from 
your statement, is trying to make every method of contraception an 
abortifacient; is that correct?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Not at all, and that is putting words in my 
mouth, and I think that is unfortunate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Lowey was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if I can make it clear, I think it is very 
important, my colleagues, that we realize what the gentleman is 
attempting to achieve with this amendment. He is stating that there is 
no form of contraception that may not be considered an abortifacient 
and, therefore, the American women have to understand----
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the gentlewoman will yield, I did not say 
that at all.
  Mrs. LOWEY. No, I will not yield. I will not yield. That the American 
people who are listening to this debate have to understand that this 
Congress wants to tell women that all forms of contraception are 
abortifacients and they cannot be considered.
  I would like to make that point again. The majority of American women 
do support the use of contraceptives. These are very personal 
decisions, we understand that, and each person has to make it for 
themselves. But the majority of American women understands that.
  Now, it seems to me from this discussion, that the gentleman from New 
Jersey is saying to every woman who may take a birth control pill or 
use another one of the five accepted methods of contraception that they 
are abortionists.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Not at all.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I think it is important to clarify what we are talking 
about because the FDA has approved five methods of contraception.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey to 
explain his amendment and to answer any questions he may have.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear to my 
colleagues that birth control pills and diaphragms are not 
abortifacients. IUDs and post-coital pills have the capability of that. 
That is where there has been very little conversation, especially with 
women, as to what might be happening when they think they are 
preventing fertilization when, indeed, implantation is what is being 
prevented.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is confusion about 
this issue, and if I may, from my experience, please lend some of that 
to our body, one; and, number two, also relay that I had a conversation 
with the gentlewoman from New York, and I do understand what her 
intention is and I do understand the intention of the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith). She has an honorable request. She won that in 
her committee, and it should be honored in that way.
  But let me clarify for this body that, in fact, the diaphragm is not 
an abortifacient; that oral contraceptives are not an abortifacient; 
that morning-after pills, in fact, are; that IUDs are, in fact, 
abortifacients.
  Now, there is not a medical question about how they work, and there 
is not a medical question about how oral contraceptives work. Their 
intention is to prevent ovulation or to prevent penetration of a sperm. 
That is not an abortifacient. And there is no question in the medical 
community about how they work.
  So I would ask this body that if, in fact, we feel we want to make a 
decision based on what the request of gentlewoman from New York really 
is, that we supply oral contraceptives to women in this country, that 
we accept the Smith amendment to that, and we can qualify and solve 
this problem and this will go through. If, in fact, not, then we will 
see we will have an extended debate on whether or not the bill will 
make it.
  An honorable amendment was brought forth in the committee. An 
honorable amendment to the gentlewoman's amendment is now offered. The 
clarity cannot be any clearer than what I have stated. The Smith 
amendment does not limit oral contraceptives, it only limits those 
things that are considered abortifacients.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I think that Members have 
to be very sensitive to what my colleague from New Jersey is attempting 
to do here today.
  Is there no limit to my colleague's willingness to impose his concept 
of when life begins on others? Conception is a process. Fertilization 
of the egg is part of that process. But if that fertilized egg does not 
get implanted, it does not grow. And so on throughout the course of 
pregnancy.
  For those who do not believe that life begins upon fertilization, but 
believes, in fact, that that fertilized egg has to be implanted, the 
gentleman is imposing his judgment as to when life begins on that 
person and, in so doing, denying them what might be the safest means of 
contraception available to them.
  Some women cannot take the pill. It is too disruptive to them. Some 
women depend on intrauterine devices and other such contracptives. When 
we get to the point where we have the courage to do more research in 
contraception, we will have many other options to offer women so that 
they can have safe contraception.
  For us to make the decision that that woman must choose a means of 
contraception that reflects any one individual's determination as to 
when in that process of conception life actually begins is a level of 
intrusion into conscience, into independence, into freedom that, 
frankly, I have never witnessed. Even the issue of being for or against 
abortion is a different issue than we debate here tonight. We have 
never, ever intruded to this depth.
  When I talk to my friends who are obstetricians, because all my 
colleagues know my husband is a retired obstetrician, how the pills 
work is not simple. In some women they have one effect, and they may 
have first effects and secondary effects. They prevent ovulation in 
general but not absolutely. And if there is a fertilization while on 
the pill, the pill prevents implantation.
  So this is a complex process. And for us to imagine here tonight that 
it is either right or proper or possible for the gentleman to impose 
his determination on others at this level is extraordinary. As a 
Republican who believes that government should stay out of our lives, I 
oppose this amendment with everything in me. And I would ask my 
colleagues, those who are pro life--and I honor that position. And I 
would say that the pro-life members of our Nation have changed the 
issue of abortion over these years. People take it far more seriously. 
It is not as casual. They have made an enormous difference for the good 
in our Nation. But that does not make it right for them to step, then, 
into this level and try to make definitions that, frankly, are not 
nearly so simple as my friend and respected colleague, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), implies.
  The lines are not clear. They are not simple. I would ask my 
colleague to respect that we are a Nation founded on the belief that we 
should have freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, and this 
amendment deeply, deeply compromises those liberties.

                          ____________________