[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 100 (Thursday, July 23, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6193-H6201]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 1997--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT 
               OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 105-158)

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

       Mr. Canady of Florida moves to discharge the Committee on 
     the Judiciary from the further consideration of the 
     president's veto of the bill H.R. 1122.

  (For veto message, see proceedings of the House of October 21, 1997 
at page H8891.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.

                              {time}  1030

  Madam Speaker, today for a second time the House considers a 
presidential veto of bipartisan legislation banning partial-birth 
abortion. In the last Congress, although the House overrode President 
Clinton's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995, the veto 
was sustained in the other body. Shortly after the current Congress 
convened, new legislation to ban partial-birth abortion was introduced. 
In due course, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997 was passed by 
both Houses. President Clinton's veto of that legislation is before the 
House today.
  Just 2 weeks ago, the Members of this House and the American people 
received a stark reminder about the reality of partial-birth abortion. 
We read in press reports of a tiny baby in Phoenix, Arizona, who was 
almost killed by a partial-birth abortion. The baby girl survived with 
a fractured skull and deep lacerations on her face. She survived only 
because the abortionist stopped the procedure when it became obvious 
that she was at 9 months and not 5\1/2\ months, as had originally been 
thought. The abortionist stopped, but we know, nevertheless, that 
partial-birth abortions are performed from the fifth month through the 
ninth month of pregnancy, and that a baby feels excruciating pain 
during a partial-birth abortion at any stage of pregnancy. 
Miraculously, in this case, a little girl who was marked for 
destruction is alive today and a Texas couple have come forward to 
adopt her.
  Of course, we know that surviving an attempted partial-birth abortion 
is very much the exception. Tragically, most of the babies singled out 
for partial-birth abortion have their lives brutally snatched away, 
just within inches from being fully born.
  Now, despite the campaign of deception waged by the abortion industry 
to cover up the facts about partial-birth abortion, we know that this 
gruesome procedure is performed thousands of times a year. We know that 
in the overwhelming majority of cases, it is performed on the healthy 
mother, mothers of healthy babies.
  We know that the abortion industry that claimed that partial-birth 
abortion is a rare procedure used only in extreme cases was a lie all 
along. We know this because the facts are undeniable and because 
representatives of the abortion industry have themselves ultimately 
admitted that the industry have been lying all along.
  With their campaign of deception exposed, with the lies revealed in 
the full light of day, what do the advocates of partial-birth abortion 
say now?
  They say that partial-birth abortion is necessary to protect the 
health of women. They say that partial-birth abortion must be preserved 
as an option for abortionists to use. They say that it is a necessary 
medical procedure. These claims, like all their other claims about 
partial-birth abortion, are false, untrue from start to finish.
  When we hear the claims of the defenders of partial-birth abortion, I 
ask the Members of the House to consider what partial-birth abortion 
is. Look at what this brutal procedure actually involves. This is 
partial-birth abortion:
  Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the live baby's leg with 
forceps. Look at this procedure.
  The baby's leg in the next step is pulled out into the birth canal.
  The abortionist then delivers the living baby's entire body, except 
for the head, which is deliberately kept lodged just within the uterus.
  Then, in the final step of this horrible procedure, the abortionist 
jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are opened to enlarge 
the hole.
  Then, after the baby has been killed, the scissors are removed and a 
suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, 
causing the skull to collapse, and the delivery of the dead child is 
completed. This is the final step. This is what we see at the 
conclusion of every partial-birth abortion.
  Now, I have described this procedure many times. I wince every time I 
describe it. It is a horrible thing to describe; it is a horrible thing 
to contemplate. And to the Members of this House who support partial-
birth abortion, I would appeal to them, I would appeal to them to look 
at what is happening whenever a partial-birth abortion is performed.
  Now, let me ask my colleagues, how is this horrific procedure 
calculated to protect the health of the mother? That claim simply makes 
no sense. It is absurd to claim that killing a partially-delivered 
child in the birth canal is necessary to protect the mother's health. 
How does this death blow delivered by the scissors into the tiny baby's 
skull help preserve the health of the mother?
  Madam Speaker, listen, listen to what Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of 
Medical Education, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mt. Sinai 
Hospital says, and I quote her:

       There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered 
     which require a partially delivered human fetus to be 
     destroyed to preserve the health of the mother.

  Listen to Dr. Nancy Romer, a practicing high-risk obstetrician-
gynecologist who is also a professor of medicine. Dr. Romer says this:

       People deserve to know that partial-birth abortion is never 
     medically indicated, whether to save the health of a woman or 
     to preserve her future fertility.

  I would appeal to my colleagues to also listen to the American 
Medical Association on this issue, which, despite its strong support 
for abortion rights, has supported this legislation to ban partial-
birth abortion. The American Medical Association itself recognizes that 
partial-birth abortion is not a legitimate medical procedure.
  The health argument used by President Clinton and the other defenders 
of partial-birth abortion is nothing more than a pretense. It is a 
cloak for the extremist position that abortion for any reason at any 
stage of pregnancy, and using any procedure imaginable should receive 
the absolute protection of the law of the land.
  I would appeal to my colleagues to reject this extremist position, 
listen to the voice of reason, cut through all the lies and deception, 
base your vote on the truth, think of the babies who are subjected to 
this horrible practice. If my colleagues do so, they will vote to 
override the President's veto.
  This House should, once again, reject the President's extremist 
position in support of partial-birth abortion, and move forward to 
override his veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the motion before us is to discharge the Committee on 
the Judiciary from further consideration of the bill. Madam Speaker, 
the Committee on the Judiciary has not considered the bill at all. It 
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary several months ago. The 
thing that

[[Page H6194]]

the Committee on the Judiciary really ought to consider, for example, 
is: is the bill constitutional or not?
  This bill is not about whether or not a decision on abortion should 
be made; the question is which procedure ought to be used, and there 
are cases, a long line of cases that say directly that we cannot 
intervene and make the decision for the physician and the mother as to 
which procedure ought to be used. The Committee on the Judiciary ought 
to consider those decisions.
  We have been asked now to discharge them from further consideration 
of the bill. Madam Chairman, the Roe versus Wade decision, the Casey 
versus Planned Parenthood and other cases have shown that we cannot 
intervene in this decision.
  We have heard the description of a case in Arizona. This bill would 
not have an effect on that because the decision for the abortion is 
made and then one decides on the procedure. If one cannot use this 
procedure, then one would use another procedure. The decision for the 
abortion is a separate decision.
  We ought to oppose the motion to discharge, and instead, require the 
Committee on the Judiciary to do its job, determine whether or not the 
bill is constitutional, which the supporters in committee last time it 
was considered acknowledged that it was not constitutional. We ought to 
fashion a constitutional bill, and there are many alternatives that we 
could have brought to the floor rather than this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
  Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to 
override the President's veto. As a mother and a grandmother of 7, this 
is an especially heartbreaking issue.
  My colleagues have just seen the graphic details. Suffice it to say, 
partial-birth abortion is a horrific way to end the life of a tiny 9-
month-old baby. It has no place in a civilized society.
  This should not be a divisive issue. We are talking about killing, 
killing healthy babies. These are babies that have long been able to 
survive outside their mother's womb.
  Madam Speaker, most Americans are really shocked when they learn that 
this procedure is legal. It is closer to infanticide than to abortion. 
For most of us, this is a no-brainer. Today when the vote is called, we 
will see many pro-choice Members of Congress vote against the 
President's veto. Madam Speaker, after all, accidental gun deaths are a 
really big problem in this country, yes, but every year, far more 
children are killed by partial birth abortions than are killed in 
accidental shootings.
  By overriding the President's veto, we are going to stand up for the 
thousands of newborn children, those children who do not have a say in 
our political process. If we fail to do so, I fear that the House will 
condone infanticide in the name of preserving abortion rights.
  The choice is easy. Let us override the President's veto.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Fazio).
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Madam Speaker, this bill, the subject of 
this debate, targets the most vulnerable women--women who want to be 
mothers, but who have found that something has gone terribly wrong with 
their health or with the fetus. None of us support late-term abortions 
for no reason, and yet supporters of this bill would have us believe 
that women come to this terrible and tragic decision arbitrarily. They 
talk of procedures and ignore the tragedy impacting the lives of real 
people, real families, women who want to be mothers.
  So I urge my colleagues to sustain the President's veto today, and 
then go back and write a bill that matches the rhetoric that we hear 
but that takes into consideration the health and life of the mother, 
because that is consistent with Roe versus Wade, which certainly allows 
the States to act to ban third-term abortion.
  The procedures that we have discussed here are rare and they should 
be so. Only when no alternative exists should they be used, but to ban 
them without further recourse is callous in and of itself.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to target women and families 
when a pregnancy has turned to crisis and becomes a tragedy. I think we 
should let a woman, her doctor, her family make this terrible choice. 
This is not the role of government. I hope we will sustain the 
President's courageous decision to veto this bill, and if we fail, I 
know the Senate will.
  This is a terribly complex area in which to legislate. I fear we have 
made this more of a political debate and over looked the kind of in-
depth analysis of the real situation that people caught in this 
terrible tragedy face.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to strongly urge my 
colleagues to vote to ban partial birth abortions. This is a moral 
blind spot that this Nation can no longer allow. It is gruesome, it is 
barbaric, and it is brutal. We have the opportunity today to ban this 
procedure with our vote to override the President's veto.
  Killing a baby as it is being born is simply an act of brutality. Our 
Constitution protects us from cruel and unusual punishment; I submit 
that partial-birth abortion is both.
  Now, last week I joined with some of my colleagues on both sides to 
provide the option of contraception in order to try to find ways to 
prevent unwanted pregnancies that too often result in abortion. Today I 
encourage my colleagues, women and men, Democrats and Republicans, pro-
life and pro-choice Members, to come together and ban this procedure 
today.

                              {time}  1045

  I urge support for this. I would encourage my colleagues to come 
together today and ban this procedure. Not just today, not just for 
tomorrow, but well into the future.
  Join together, as we did last week with the strong support of both 
sides of the aisle, to try to do what we think is right. It is not 
oftentimes when we consider budgets and pot holes and hydrogen and 
space programs that we vote on life itself. This is one of those votes. 
I encourage bipartisan support for our position.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I am strongly opposed to late-term 
abortions. In fact, in 1987, as a member of the Texas Senate, I helped 
pass a law that is law today that is saving babies from late-term 
abortions.
  But, Madam Speaker, there is a huge difference between the bill that 
we passed that is law today in Texas, that is working, and the bill 
that was designed for maximum political sound bite impact that we are 
voting on today.
  The first difference, in Texas our goal was to save babies. That is 
why we outlawed all late-term abortion procedures. This bill, if 
Members look at it carefully beyond the 30-second sound bite and TV ad 
appeal of it, this bill still allows abortions to occur in America on 
the 29th day of the eighth month of pregnancy.
  The sponsor of this bill just a moment ago said we should be honest 
in this debate. Let the proponents of this bill be honest to the 
American people in saying that this bill, this bill will allow 
abortions in America at the eight month, 29th day. We did not think 
that was right in Texas, and that is why we wrote the law differently. 
I think the supporters of this bill ought to discuss that point. That 
is one reason, frankly, I think this bill should go back to committee 
for further consideration, rather than political debate here today.
  Second difference. In Texas, because we wanted to save babies and not 
make a political point, on a bipartisan basis we crafted a bill that 
would meet constitutional guidelines. This bill is clearly 
unconstitutional, one of the reasons the President vetoed it under the 
guidelines of Roe versus Wade and as has been established by Federal 
judges and courts across this country from one State to another.
  The third difference between the Texas law today and the bill we are 
debating today is in Texas we trusted women to make responsible choices 
in very rare tragic pregnancies. This bill does not trust women to make 
those responsible choices.

[[Page H6195]]

  Specifically, the Texas law said in those rare cases where a woman's 
health was seriously at risk or her fertility at risk, the incredibly 
difficult emotional decision about how to preserve the mother's ability 
to have children in the future should be a decision made by that woman 
and her doctor and her God, and not by politicians in Austin, Texas, or 
in Washington, D.C.
  Madam Speaker, in my personal opinion, if there is one frivolous 
late-term abortion using any procedure anywhere in America, that is one 
too many and we ought to stop it. But this bill does not do that. What 
this bill does is potentially, according to the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the experts in this field, this bill 
what it is really going to do is risk women's health and their ability 
to have children.
  Madam Speaker, we ought to send this bill back to committee and make 
a bill that works, not a bill that makes sound bites.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth).
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Canady) for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I wanted to address a point by the previous speaker 
about the fact that the Texas law preserves the right of a woman to 
more children; that is a higher choice than right to the life of a 
matured child yet in its mother's womb.
  The fact we need to remember is that that baby who is being killed 
and delivered by the partial-birth abortion will not only not have a 
choice for its own fertility in the future, it will not even have a 
life, and that is what this bill is about, preserving life.
  Now, we preserve all kinds of things in this Nation, including things 
that may need to be utilized. But preserving life is our number one 
criteria and our duty as lawmakers.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 1122, the Partial-birth Abortion Ban 
Act. Last year, apologists for this abominable practice raised a fog of 
mendacity over the whole issue, but yet that today, that fog of 
mendacity has been pierced. There is greater understanding.
  Let the truth be known that thousands, thousands of partial-birth 
abortions are performed every year on mature children that are yet 
unborn.
  On June 30, for instance, of just this year, 1998, an Arizona 
abortionist stopped a partial-birth abortion right after he began it. 
The baby's skull was crushed and the baby was born with a crushed skull 
and facial lacerations. That was carried in the national news, this 
very disturbing news. But thank goodness that that doctor realized at 
that very critical moment that was a living being. That was a child, 
and that he was going to end that child's life.
  Even that doctor and everyone else can clearly see that this issue, 
Madam Speaker, that partial-birth abortion is murder. This procedure is 
medieval, and so is the logic of those who advocate and apologize for 
it. This debate is not about when life begins, for the infants targeted 
by this procedure are mature babies.
  Madam Speaker, as lawmakers, we do have our first responsibility to 
preserve life and preserve life of the most vulnerable kind, babies yet 
unborn in the mother's womb.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, very briefly I would state that the bill does not 
prevent a single abortion. In fact, if this bill passes, women who have 
abortions may have to undergo sterilization and not be able to have 
children in the future, because this bill does not have a health 
exception.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, this is one of the most painful debates 
that this House has to face, but it does not compare with the decision 
facing parents, a medical decision that few have had to confront.
  For some families, the only hope of retaining a woman's ability to 
have children is at stake in this Congress. It has been a tenet of 
privacy and citizenship in the United States that the doctor-patient 
relationship is sacrosanct. And yet for the first time in the history 
of this Republic, over 200 years, this Congress is trying to outlaw a 
medical procedure and to determine whether it should be used or not.
  What is next? Last week the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. 
Johnson) in what I thought was a very poignant moment, when some were 
trying to outlaw contraceptives said, ``Is there no limit to where this 
Congress will go to insert itself into the most private decisions that 
human beings have to make?''
  Perhaps we can go further. Perhaps the next procedure we will outlaw 
here will be hysterectomy during childbearing years. I submit that some 
of the people in this House think that should be outlawed.
  But most importantly, I want to ask my colleagues and the American 
public to consider this issue: When confronted with a medical decision 
that could break a woman's heart and destroy her future chances to be a 
mother, who would she prefer to consult? Would she in that circumstance 
want to talk to her doctor, her family, or her spiritual advisor or, as 
Congress has determined, would she be just as satisfied to talk to her 
Member of Congress?
  Madam Speaker, I submit that we are no way qualified to make this 
decision and that on behalf of the parents who are confronted with this 
awful determination to be made, I pray we will not override this veto.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would inquire concerning the 
amount of time remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Emerson). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Canady) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 20\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
vote against this ill-conceived and mean-spirited effort to override 
the President's veto of H.R. 1122.
  Let us consider what we have learned since the House last considered 
this so-called partial-birth abortion ban. Six of the nine States that 
have passed these laws using language from the Federal bill have had 
their laws enjoined by the courts. Moreover, 18 respected judges from a 
range of ideological viewpoints across the country have found that H.R. 
1122 is so vague and overreaching that it could prevent legal abortions 
throughout pregnancy.
  Make no mistake about it, preventing legal abortions is exactly what 
the proponents of this bill intended. Their goal is not ultimately to 
ban a specific medical procedure, but it is ultimately to outlaw 
abortion altogether.
  Members should not just take my word for it, but should listen to the 
words of the Federal judges from across the political spectrum and 
across the country. Iowa District Judge Robert W. Pratt held that the 
partial-birth abortion law is, ``unconstitutionally vague and unduly 
burdensome on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.''
  Illinois Judge Charles P. Kocoras held that, ``The statute, as 
written, has the potential effect of banning the most common and safest 
abortion procedures.''
  U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of Nebraska said, ``A criminal law, 
especially one banning protected constitutional freedoms like abortion, 
that fails to give wordings or that allows arbitrary prosecution is 
`void for vagueness.' Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban is the 
epitome of such a law.''
  Now, the esteemed gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) said that he 
was glad, and I am glad too, that last week he voted to allow the free 
use of contraception. No one likes abortion. I abhor abortion. But 
abortion is what we need from time to time when pregnancies go 
tragically awry. In the meantime, we need contraception.
  Regrettably, almost 200 of our colleagues did not agree with the 
gentleman from Indiana, and they in fact would ban four of the five 
approved forms of contraception in this country.
  That is what this agenda item is about. This agenda item is not about 
saving healthy babies. This agenda item is about ultimately banning not 
only abortion, but a woman's right to birth control so that she can 
choose the direction of her own body.

[[Page H6196]]

  Madam Speaker, if this was such a critical problem in this country 
right now, why did we wait since October 1997 to override the 
President's veto? We could have saved, according to my colleagues on 
that side of the aisle, hundreds of healthy babies. No, this is not a 
critical health problem in this country. This is a political issue for 
the 1998 elections.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, 25 years after Roe v. Wade, I 
believe it is time for a serious reality check and a compassion check 
as well.
  Supreme Court imposed abortion-on-demand in America has claimed the 
lives of more than 36 million boys and girls and, although grossly 
underreported, has resulted in death, injury, and emotional trauma to 
women.
  It is time to come to grips with the truth and to ask the question 
why we seem to care so little about a whole generation of babies lost.
  Abortion methods, Madam Speaker, are violence against children. 
Abortion methods dismember and chemically poison kids. There is 
absolutely nothing compassionate about dousing a baby with 
superconcentrated salt water or lethal injections into the baby's 
beating heart, or hacking the baby to pieces with surgical knives.

                              {time}  1100

  Why do so many of us live in denial concerning this pernicious 
violence against children?
  Today, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion lobby is 
asking the House to sustain a misguided veto so as to permit and 
empower abortionists to continue to murder children as they are being 
born. To legally sanction such an execution begs the question: Is there 
nothing the Congress or President will not embrace under the banner of 
``choice''? Are the lives of little girls and boys so cheap?
  Madam Speaker, earlier this month a 6-pound baby girl, ``Baby 
Phoenix'' as she is now called, was born with a skull fracture and 
lacerations on her face after an abortionist, Dr. John Biskind, 
unsuccessfully attempted to perform a partial-birth abortion on her 17-
year-old mother. ``Baby Phoenix'' is the first known survivor of this 
brutal procedure.
  It has taken years, and the deaths of thousands of children and at 
least two women, who he left to bleed to death, but Dr. Biskind now 
will not be allowed to continue his murderous ways. This week the State 
medical board voted to suspend his license. The irony is that it is not 
the deaths he caused that brought the board's disfavor, but the fact 
that a baby whom he was trying to kill actually survived and was 
delivered alive.
  Madam Speaker, some on this floor, and in Dear Colleagues that have 
been sent out, suggest that the Hoyer-Greenwood proposal somehow will 
prohibit all late-term abortions. Nothing, I would say, is further from 
the truth.
  Lest any of us be deceived, the Hoyer-Greenwood bill places no 
restriction whatever on late term abortions. While it is not on the 
floor today but it is being referred to in this debate as an 
alternative, the plain meaning of the language places no restriction 
whatsoever, not even symbolic limitations, on partial-birth abortions 
performed before an individual baby can be proven to be viable; that 
is, definitely able to survive if born prematurely. The vast majority 
of partial-birth abortions are performed in the 5th and 6th months of 
pregnancy, when the baby's lung development is not quite sufficient or 
barely sufficient to allow independent survival.
  Second, even after the baby is demonstratively viable, the Hoyer-
Greenwood bill would permit abortion by partial-birth abortion or any 
other method, if in the medical judgment of the attending physician, 
that is to say the abortionist, that the abortion is necessary to avert 
serious adverse health consequences to the woman.
  In a March 12, 1997 press conference in the House Radio-TV gallery, 
which was tape-recorded, my good friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), was asked directly what the word health 
means in his proposal. The gentleman responded. ``It does include 
mental health. Yes, it does.''
  He then went on to explain that mental health would include 
psychological trauma. Thus, unless my colleagues believe that it should 
be permissible to kill a baby, even during the final 3 months of 
pregnancy, a premature infant, for reasons of mental health or 
psychological trauma, they should not support H.R. 1032. And if my 
colleagues believe that it should not be permissible to pull a living 
baby feet first into the birth canal, puncture her skull and remove her 
brain in the 5th and 6th months, please vote to override the 
President's veto. Support the motion to override the President's 
misguided veto.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time and stand to oppose the motion to discharge.
  The previous speaker, my colleague from New Jersey, said it is time 
for a reality check and a compassion check. I think that is quite true. 
Let us start with the reality check.
  My friend from New Jersey just described abortion in horrific, 
horrible terms, as if that is what abortion is all about. In fact, it 
was just last week that the gentleman from New Jersey stood at this 
podium and could not tell us whether the birth control pill was 
abortion. In fact, he told us the IUD is abortion. The reality check 
is, and I will turn to this chart, the reality check is that this is 
when abortions occur in America: Overwhelmingly early in pregnancy.
  Now, let us have a compassion check. Who could vote against this bill 
after it has been described in such horrific terms? I am going to vote 
against this bill, and I will match my compassion ratings with anyone. 
Most of my career, before I went into politics, was as a social worker. 
I worked with handicapped children. I worked with abused children. I 
held them in my arms. I rescued them from danger. I loved them and I 
cared about them. I love and I care about my children. I love babies. 
That is not what this is about.
  This bill is based on a fraud, and the fraud is that this procedure 
is used frequently late in pregnancies. As this chart shows, 99 percent 
of all of the abortions in America occur prior to the 20th week of 
gestation; the overwhelming majority, 89 percent, prior to 12 weeks; 
99\1/2\ percent of the abortions in America occur before the 22nd week; 
and 99.94 percent of abortions in America occur before the 24th week.
  The reason Americans are confused about this bill is because people 
have intentionally tried to confuse them with the notion that somehow 
women in their 7th, 8th and 9th month of pregnancies are having 
abortions. And they are not, except for the most extraordinary, 
extraordinary medical reasons, and reasons that require compassion from 
all of us.
  Now, to put to an end this debate about whether somehow in America 
women are getting late-term abortions after the 6th month for frivolous 
reasons, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Steny Hoyer) and I offered a 
substitute to this bill which would have banned this procedure and all 
procedures beyond viability, beyond the 24th week, except for the most 
extraordinary cases, where the health of the mother or the life of the 
mother is at risk.
  What saddens me is that we, my friends, my colleagues, are not 
spending our time on the floor of this body trying to prevent 99 
percent of the abortions, trying to prevent unintended pregnancy, which 
we could do in so many ways in which we could agree: Using birth 
control, using education, helping define mentors for young ladies in 
situations where they do not have proper guidance in their lives, so 
they are not the victims of sexual predators way beyond their age 
engaging them in inappropriate sexual activities and impregnating them.
  This is where America's work needs to be done. It does not need to be 
done out beyond 99.94 percent of the abortions in America. Because, in 
fact, those abortions are rare and done for the most extraordinary 
reasons and, again, reasons that require our compassion.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

[[Page H6197]]

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding.
  Is it not true that the bill the gentleman has sponsored would give 
the abortionist unfettered discretion to determine when an abortion 
would be performed during the third trimester or post viability? 
Because the gentleman has an exception in there that says that the 
abortion can be performed if in the medical judgment of the attending 
physician, that is the abortionist, the abortionist believes it is 
necessary. Is that not in the gentleman's bill?
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Madam Speaker, it certainly is. It certainly is. And I 
know that the gentleman knows the facts, because he is a student of 
them, but anyone who knows the facts knows that that is not a loophole 
through which hundreds or dozens or scores of women would proceed.
  The fact of the matter is that under Roe versus Wade today doctors 
have the opportunity to allow late-term abortions for medical reasons. 
And the facts show indisputably that this is an exception that is not 
abused. We cannot find an abortionist in this country who will do a 
late-term abortion for frivolous reasons.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, this is amazing to me. This is a vote about 
common decency. This is a procedure that is gruesome, it is inhuman, 
and it is unnecessary. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, I just answer 
him when he says it is rarely used, that even Everett Koop said, and I 
quote, ``In no way can I twist my mind to see that partial birth and 
then destruction of the unborn child before the head is born is a 
medical necessity for the mother.'' The President has turned his back 
on millions of Americans who are sickened by this procedure.
  To the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who said that this is a rare 
procedure, and then tried to cover things up with statistics, I would 
say that, in fact, in New Jersey alone 1,500 babies were killed with 
this procedure and are killed every year.
  Now, we do not like to hear the details about this procedure. We do 
not like to talk about such things in public or in private. But, Madam 
Speaker, we must talk about them. The implications that we face if we 
do not are too far-reaching. The media rarely describes partial-birth 
abortion. They and some of my colleagues here today will politely call 
it a certain late-term procedure. Well, I submit to my colleagues that 
there is nothing polite about this procedure. Certainly the aborted 
baby, whose life is snuffed out in such a violent way, does not think 
that this is a polite procedure.
  Madam Speaker, human life is precious. When we allow human life to be 
so coldly and violently taken in the manner of the partial-birth 
abortion, we are all diminished as a society. So I urge my colleagues 
to think before they vote. This is a conscience vote. Is this the kind 
of procedure that my colleagues would be proud to tell their children 
that they supported? Is this the kind of violence that they would be 
comfortable in defending when it comes time to meet their maker?
  This is a real gut-wrenching conscience vote. Vote to override the 
President's veto.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and if the gentleman would stay in the well, I would ask my 
friend from Texas, I understand what he has said, and I agree with his 
proposition of the American public's view. I ask him this. He talks 
about a procedure. Is there a procedure that he believes is preferable?
  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, there is no procedure that is preferable in 
killing a baby that is about to be born naturally, no. I do not believe 
in a procedure that will kill a baby. I ask the gentleman back----
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. DeLAY. At what time is it appropriate to kill a baby?
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. DeLAY. What time? The gentleman ought to answer that.
  Mr. HOYER. The court clearly has said that in terms of the 
Constitution there is a right of a woman and her doctor to make that 
decision and to terminate the pregnancy.
  My question, and rather than yell at one another, rather than accuse 
one another of awful things, I want to find out what we are talking 
about. It is my premise that the gentleman does not believe there is 
any procedure, at any time, that is less than objectionable. Am I 
correct in that premise?
  Mr. DeLAY. I think the gentleman's question is grammatically in 
error.
  Mr. HOYER. I would ask the gentleman to not quibble with me. I would 
ask the gentleman not to quibble with me; I am not trying to quibble 
with him. I am trying really to get to the heart of what I think is a 
difficult issue for the American public and for everyone on the floor.
  Mr. DeLAY. Well, ask the question. If the gentleman would ask the 
question in a manner someone can understand it, I will be glad to 
answer it.
  Mr. HOYER. All right. Does the gentleman believe there is any 
procedure acceptable to terminate a pregnancy at any time?
  Mr. DeLAY. No, I do not.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. DeLAY. Unless it is for the life of a mother and a decision must 
be made between the baby and the life of the mother. Then that decision 
should be made. But, no, I do not believe that at any time an unborn 
child should be murdered just for convenience. No.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I understand what the gentleman said. 
In the case of the life of the mother, which the gentleman indicates he 
believes is an exception, what procedure would he advocate? What 
procedure to terminate the pregnancy would the gentleman advocate?
  Mr. DeLAY. We do not have to use this procedure.
  Mr. HOYER. No, I understand that. Which procedure would the gentleman 
advocate?
  Mr. DeLAY. I would like to answer the gentleman's question. Doctor 
after doctor, including C. Everett Koop, who was the surgeon general, 
says that there is no reason whatsoever, even for the life of a mother, 
that this particular procedure must be used, where a baby is nearly 
born and then they suck the brains out of its head before it is fully 
born.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I know the gentleman wants to make 
this debate as gruesome as he can. I understand that. I ask the 
gentleman again: In the instance in which the gentleman says is 
acceptable, saving the life of the mother, what procedure would the 
gentleman think is preferable?
  Mr. DeLAY. And if the gentleman will yield, I will tell the gentleman 
that this is a gruesome procedure for the baby that it is being 
performed on.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand.
  Mr. DeLAY. I am once again answering the gentleman that many doctors 
have already said and written extensively that this particular 
procedure does not have to be used.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman does not 
either have an answer to my question or does not want to answer it. My 
presumption is that because he has no alternative, is there a procedure 
which he would believe was appropriate to save the life of the mother 
and, if so, what is that procedure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Canady) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith).
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, first I would like to 
read and then submit for the Record the American Medical Association 
letter endorsing this bill and saying that it is an unnecessary 
procedure.
  I think it is real revealing because the American Medical Association 
rarely or never interjects and makes illegal an abortion procedure, but 
they have made an exception in this case. I am going to read this short 
letter because it says a lot and it blows away a

[[Page H6198]]

lot of the smoke about how this bill works.
  It says, ``The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997,'' as amended, 
that we support this. Then it goes on to say, ``Although our general 
policy is to oppose legislation criminalizing medical practice or 
procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation where the procedure 
was narrowly defined,'' and listen, ``not medically indicated.'' 
Otherwise, not medically necessary. ``H.R. 1122 now meets both those 
tests.
  ``Our support of this legislation is based on three specific 
principles. First, the bill would allow a legitimate exception where 
the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the 
physician's judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the 
life of the mother. Second, the bill would clearly define the 
prohibited procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation 
what act is to be banned.
  ``Finally, the bill would give any accused physician the right to 
have his or her conduct reviewed by the State Medical Board before a 
criminal trial commenced. In this manner, the bill would provide a 
formal role for valuable medical peer determination in any enforcement 
proceeding.
  ``The AMA believes that with these changes, physicians will be on 
notice as to the exact nature of the prohibited conduct.''
  Then in quotes, they have made it very clear, and I have the quotes 
and we can submit them, that they do not believe that partial birth 
abortion is ever needed.
  I want to talk about this procedure briefly because sometimes we 
forget what it is; and it is not pretty, but we are talking about lives 
and we are talking about law to protect vulnerable women and vulnerable 
babies.
  The procedure takes 3 days, my colleagues. They start by dilating the 
cervix. They use procedures that soften so that they can eventually 
find a way to make an opening large enough to pull the baby through. 
They turn the baby so it is actually breeched opposite the way a baby 
would be born.
  Often in that procedure they will wrap the baby with the cord, and 
sometimes the baby strangles. If not, they do deliver the baby in all 
cases. And right after the little feet come out and the little bottom 
and then they get the shoulders out, right before the head comes out, 
they hold the baby.
  Now, talking to nurses, this is very difficult because the natural 
process is for the baby to come out and breathe. They hold the baby 
because they know if that little nose comes out and the mouth the baby 
will breathe. If the baby breathes, under the law, it is alive. But if 
the baby does not breathe, it is not considered a person. So this is 
what we are talking about. The average cost is $1,200 to $1,600. And it 
has become an industry.
  Now, we have got some pretty interesting cases where women have gone 
and they have actually been hurt and died in partial birth abortions. 
But I want to talk about one, Louann Herron. And this is reported and 
it just came out, and it is very unfortunate because she was in the 
middle of a divorce.
  She went to an abortion clinic, where they make a lot of money. In 
fact, a lot of times the doctors are not there, they have the procedure 
done by someone else. I think it is very important that we understand 
that this is not for the baby or the woman. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against the President.
  Madam Speaker, I include the following articles for the Record:

               [From the Arizona Republic, July 14, 1998]

                     Patient ``Didn't Have To Die''


     she was left to bleed 3 hours after abortion, ex-staffers say

         (By Heather Ratcliffe, Susie Steckner and Jodie Snyder

       Louann Herron lay bleeding from a punctured uterus for more 
     than three hours as a medical assistant at the A-Z Women's 
     Center begged her supervisor to call 911, three former 
     employees of the abortion clinic say.
       By the time the supervisor paged Herron's doctor to get 
     permission to call paramedics, it was too late.
       Herron died hours after an abortion performed by Dr. John 
     Biskind, the same doctor who delivered a full-term baby at 
     the clinic June 30 after misdiagnosing the fetal age by 13 
     weeks. Biskind and center officials on Monday refused to 
     comment on the case, which has prompted a police 
     investigation.
       Herron's encounter with A-Z Women's Center began in a 
     similar fashion. But it became a saga of disappointment, 
     deception and death, according to three former employees who 
     told their stories to The Arizona Republic.
       According to the former employees, Herron, 32, was in the 
     process of being divorced when she visited the center April 7 
     with a friend for an abortion.
       An employee--fairly new to the clinic--performed an 
     ultrasound examination indicating that Herron was 23 weeks 
     and a few days pregnant.
                                  ____



                                 American Medical Association,

                                        Chicago, IL, May 19, 1997.
     Hon. Rick Santorum,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Santorum: The American Medical Association 
     (AMA) is writing to support HR 1122, ``The Partial Birth 
     Abortion Ban Act of 1997,'' as amended. Although our general 
     policy is to oppose legislation criminalizing medical 
     practice or procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation 
     where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically 
     indicated. HR 1122 now meets both those tests.
       Our support of this legislation is based on three specific 
     principles. First, the bill would allow a legitimate 
     exception where the life of the mother was endangered, 
     thereby preserving the physician's judgment to take any 
     medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother. 
     Second, the bill would clearly define the prohibited 
     procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation 
     what act is to be banned. Finally, the bill would give any 
     accused physician the right to have his or her conduct 
     reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial 
     commenced. In this manner, the bill would provide a formal 
     role for valuable medical peer determination in any 
     enforcement proceeding.
       The AMA believes that with these changes, physicians will 
     be on notice as to the exact nature of the prohibited 
     conduct.
       Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards 
     restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine.
           Sincerely,
                                              P. John. Seward, MD.

  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Madam Speaker, first of all, if we are going to take the 
AMA's word for this, then we ought to pass the Parker bill or the 
Patients' Bill of rights because the AMA endorses that. And if we are 
going to take Mr. Koop's word, then we ought to have a real tobacco 
bill in the House. But, obviously, the Republican majority wants to 
play fast and loose on whose advice they want to take and when they 
want to take it.
  I do not think any of us support this particular procedure. But why 
do we not look at what 40 other states, including my State of Texas, 
are doing. I have heard a lot of my colleagues, most from the other 
side, for the last 4 years talk about how the States are the 
laboratories of government, where we ought to be seeing what they are 
doing. But I guess that is only when it is convenient or when the 
States agree with us; and otherwise, if they do not, we are going to 
tell them what to do. That is what this bill does. But worse, this bill 
is about politics.
  Now, last week we had a vote on taking away abortion rights. Let me 
read what one of my colleagues said. ``I want this to be a campaign 
issue. This is going to be great,'' he said, adding that his colleagues 
who oppose abortion restrictions will face fierce questions in their 
districts. ``They better be prepared to defend themselves because we 
are going to have the grassroots out there talking about it.''
  That is what this is about. It is not about the women who need the 
health services so they can bear more children. My good friend and 
colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, ``where is the 
common decency?''
  Well, how is it for common decency when we tell a woman that she is 
going to lose the ability to bear more children if she cannot have a 
certain type of procedure? What is decent about that? Not a single 
thing. This is politics, pure and simple, and it is about as indecent 
as this House can get.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Christensen).
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Yesterday I had the opportunity to manage the debate on the MFN 
Normal Trade Relations bill. A number of my pro-choice friends and 
colleagues over on this side were with me on that losing battle of 166 
votes.
  But a number of those same people that were crying out for human 
rights

[[Page H6199]]

in China, fighting for the forced abortions in China, talking about the 
issues of the Chinese women, are now on the same side of allowing this 
partial birth abortion bill to go forth.
  Well, what about the human rights in America? What about the human 
rights of the unborn children? What about the human rights of Baby 
Phoenix and the thousands and thousands of little children who are 
murdered each year? What about the human rights for those that have no 
say?
  If we are going to stand with the Chinese women and the forced 
abortions, we should stand together to make sure that the children have 
a voice in this, the Baby Phoenixes of the world, the Baby Phoenixes of 
America.
  Vote to override this partial birth abortion veto. Do what is right.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to reconsidering this bill, and I 
urge my colleagues to join me in sustaining the President's veto.
  We all agree that healthy women with healthy fetuses should not have 
post-viability abortions. But the authors of this bill do nothing to 
address this issue. Instead by focusing on medical procedures, the 
Republican leadership's partial birth abortion ban fails to fully 
address abortions performed post-viability and overreaches by banning 
abortions pre-viability.
  The Republican leadership has refused to bring up a bipartisan bill 
that accomplishes, in fact, what their bill only achieves in nasty 
rhetoric.
  H.R. 1032, which was introduced by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) at the 
beginning of the 105th session, would ban all late-term abortions 
unless it was necessary to save the life of the mother or to avert 
serious adverse health consequences.
  Unfortunately, the House leadership has presented us with the 
singular option of voting on H.R. 1122, which is believed by many to be 
unconstitutional.
  Despite the fact that a modified ban would pass in the House, despite 
the fact that the President has said that he would sign the modified 
ban, this body has not even been given the opportunity to consider the 
Hoyer-Greenwood bill.
  The House leadership is clearly not interested in passing legislation 
that would set public policy on the issue of late-term abortion. 
Instead, they have tried to depict pro-choice Members as radical and 
out of step with the values of mainstream America.
  Further, in this debate today, unfortunately, they have chosen to 
demonize women and to accuse doctors of medical malfeasance.
  I and other supporters of the Hoyer-Greenwood bill are pro-choice and 
are willing to vote for a ban on late-term abortions provided that 
there are health and life exceptions.
  If the House leadership truly wants to reduce the number of late-term 
abortions performed, they would bring H.R. 1032, the Hoyer-Greenwood 
bill, to the floor and allow the House to debate a bill that would 
actually accomplish something.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to 
discharge, because we must override the President's veto of a ban on 
this horrendous practice of partial birth abortions.
  It is an outrage that in this civilized modern society we still allow 
for this procedure to occur despite the mountain of evidence indicating 
that it is unnecessary and that it has, as the ultimate consequence of 
its completion, the killing of a partially delivered baby who cannot 
defend him or herself against the unscrupulous abortion industry.
  It is important to remind our colleagues what this gruesome procedure 
involves. It consists of partially delivering the life baby's feet 
first, with only the head inside the mother's womb, and then stabbing 
the child at the base of the skull, a child that is already able to 
live outside the mother's womb.
  The American Medical Association said about partial birth abortion, 
``the partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it 
outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and 
physicians.''
  The AMA ``could not find any identified circumstances in which the 
procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method.''
  Even abortion practitioners, like Martin Haskell, reported to the 
American Medical News, ``most of my abortions are elective in that 20-
24 week range. In my particular case, probably 20 percent of partial 
birth abortions are performed for genetic reasons. And the other 80 
percent are purely elective.''
  Madam Speaker, Americans cannot stand idly by while this tragic 
procedure is performed. Many doctors have stated that this horrid 
practice can severely damage a woman's health. And let us not forget, 
it kills an innocent human life.
  Let us overturn the veto.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, could you advise us as to the time 
remaining on both sides, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 
5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) 
has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today, my colleagues, not so much to speak on the veto 
override, although the bill in question, I believe sincerely, will not 
in fact stop any abortion. This is about a procedure, not about 
abortion. The issue should not be about a procedure. I want to make it 
clear, I am opposed to late-term abortions by any procedure.
  I rise today to call Members' attention to legislation which has been 
referenced before that has as its intent stopping all late-term 
abortions by whatever procedure.
  I asked the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was there an alternative 
procedure he thought preferable. He would not answer that question. Nor 
will anybody on this floor. Not one. Because there is no alternative 
procedure that proponents believe is a preferable procedure.

                              {time}  1130

  The fact is I think most of us are against what the gentlewoman from 
Florida talked about, elective late-term abortions. I am absolutely 
opposed to that, unequivocally opposed to elective late-term abortions.
  Do I make exceptions in my bill? Yes. As the gentleman from Texas 
intoned, for the life of the mother. There is not a Member, I think, on 
this floor who would not vote for that exception. Not one. Then, yes, 
we go on to say for serious adverse health consequences to the mother, 
a wrenching, difficult decision for a doctor and a patient to make.
  But I am opposed and believe that any ethical doctor would oppose 
elective late-term abortions by whatever procedure. And if they do not, 
the medical association ought to take them to task and our bill would 
impose a very significant penalty on so doing.
  Whether this bill today passes or fails, I would ask the Committee on 
the Judiciary and ask the gentleman from Florida to report this bill to 
the floor. Let us debate. Let us go on record as 41 States in America 
have gone on record and say, we are opposed as public policy to late-
term, elective abortions. Period. No ifs, ands or buts, no this 
procedure is not good but that procedure is okay. Not deal with 
procedures. Deal with substance. Deal with saying that we should not 
have these abortions late-term for elective reasons.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, a minute is not nearly enough time to 
address the horrors of partial-birth abortion. But I trust that during 
the course of this debate the truth will come through and this body 
will do the right thing, the decent thing and vote to override the 
President's unconscionable veto of the partial-birth abortion ban. This 
ought to be simple. You should not kill babies.
  Partial-birth abortion is infanticide. It is the termination of the 
life of a living baby just seconds before it takes

[[Page H6200]]

its first breath outside the womb. The procedure is violent, it is 
gruesome, it is undeniably wrong. It is the killing of a baby as it is 
being born.
  This morning's vote is among the most important we will ever make. It 
is one that will long be remembered. I would urge my colleagues to say 
``no'' to the abortion President and ``no'' to the most militant 
leaders of the abortion lobby and vote to protect the lives of 
helpless, defenseless little babies.
  Madam Speaker, let us vote today to defend those little babies who 
cannot defend themselves.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, could I ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot), if he does not like partial-birth, what will he be willing to 
accept to save the life of the mother if he does not like this measure?
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. CHABOT. Under the proposal we have----
  Mr. CONYERS. Just answer me.
  Mr. CHABOT. We would accept this procedure if the mother's life is at 
risk.
  Mr. CONYERS. Oh, you do accept it?
  Mr. CHABOT. I think everybody would accept when you have a balance 
between the mother's life and the child's life. That is not the issue.
  Mr. CONYERS. Then why are you opposing this?
  Mr. CHABOT. It is wrong to kill babies, as simple as that.
  Mr. CONYERS. Just a moment. No lectures. Just answer the question. 
What about serious health risk, like sterility?
  Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman will yield further, I think the 
gentleman is aware of when you talk about health risk.
  Mr. CONYERS. Just answer me.
  Mr. CHABOT. If somebody feels bad about themselves, that is enough to 
allow the procedure.
  Mr. CONYERS. What do you think about serious health risk, namely, 
fertility? What is the answer? I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman from Michigan is 
aware that if you allow an exception for health reasons, it can mean if 
a psychiatrist thinks that somebody is going to feel better about 
themselves.
  Mr. CONYERS. We are talking about serious physical health. Yes or no.
  Mr. CHABOT. That is not what your bill says. The bottom line is we 
are trying to save babies. You are always saying, Let us do this for 
the children, let us do that for the children. Let us pass this veto 
override to save the children. This will really save children.
  Mr. CONYERS. What about all the other procedures that you allow that 
we are not doing this that we are doing to partial-birth? What about 
them?
  Mr. CHABOT. The bottom line is the folks that are on our side here 
want to save kids. We want to save children.
  Mr. CONYERS. I am talking about you.
  Mr. CHABOT. While they are being born. I think we ought to join 
together and try to save those babies that would otherwise be born.
  Mr. CONYERS. You are against protective procedure and all these other 
procedures. We will talk later about this.
  Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. CONYERS. It was a pleasure.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN. Madam Speaker, our civilized society must not allow 
President Clinton's preference for partial-birth abortions to continue. 
I not only speak for my fellow Kansans but also for the preborn 
children throughout this country whose lives are taken by this gruesome 
procedure.
  Recently a doctor performing a partial-birth abortion realized in the 
middle of the procedure that he had misjudged the baby's age. She was 
actually only three weeks away from being in full term. Thankfully the 
doctor was able to stop the abortion and successfully deliver the baby. 
That is a happy ending.
  However, the tragedy of partial-birth abortion is that any preborn 
baby in the third trimester has a good chance of survival. Only the 
abortionist's scalpel prevents that baby from having its first breath. 
Can we seriously allow a few inches to distinguish between a baby and a 
blob of tissue?
  Members of Congress as well as the AMA have not found a single 
circumstance where partial-birth abortion was the only safe and 
effective abortion method. It is just not there.
  The truth is this procedure poses a greater risk to the mother's 
health than a full-term delivery. For the health of women, for the 
lives of our children, and for the future of America, we must put an 
end to this ghastly procedure.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As 
has been pointed out in the debate, Madam Speaker, this bill will not 
stop any abortion. It will just require an alternative procedure to be 
used. We have had no answer to the question of what that alternative 
should be. What we should do is defeat the motion to discharge the 
committee from further consideration of the bill, require the Committee 
on the Judiciary to in fact consider the bill and the fact that it is 
unconstitutional and consider alternatives like the Hoyer-Greenwood 
bill that would prevent the maximum number of abortions consistent with 
the Supreme Court decisions. I would hope that we would defeat the 
motion and have the Committee on the Judiciary report a constitutional 
bill.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Ohio is 
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I rise as an original cosponsor of 
this most important act, and I support this motion to override the 
President's veto.
  Abortion, except to save the mother's life, is wrong. However, this 
particular procedure is doubly wrong. It requires a partial delivery 
and involves pain to the baby.
  Madam Speaker, we have heard the medical details of these abortions 
from others. I believe that a compassionate society should not promote 
a procedure that is gruesome and inflicts pain on the victim. We have 
humane methods of capital punishment. We have humane treatment of 
prisoners. We even have laws to protect animals. It seems to me we 
should have some standards for abortion as well.
  Many years ago, surgery was performed on newborns with the thought 
that they did not feel pain. Now, we know they do feel pain. According 
to Dr. Paul Ranalli, a neurologist at the University of Toronto, at 20 
weeks a human fetus is covered by pain receptors and has 1 billion 
nerve cells. Pain is inflicted to the fetus with this procedure.
  Madam Speaker, I do not want to discuss this bill relating to 
abortion without saying that we have a deep moral obligation to 
improving the quality of life for children after they are born. I could 
not stand here and honestly debate this subject with a clear conscience 
if I did not spend a good portion of my time on improving hunger 
conditions and trying to help children and their families achieve a 
just life after they are born.
  Enough is enough. One thing this Congress ought to do this year is 
stop this very reprehensible and gruesome technique of abortion. We 
treat dogs better than this.
  Please vote to override the President's veto.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. Madam 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.
  Without objection, votes on the motion to instruct and on a motion to 
authorize closed meetings of conferees on the national defense 
authorization will be taken immediately following the 15-

[[Page H6201]]

minute vote on the motion to discharge, and the vote on closing 
meetings will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.
  There was no objection.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 295, 
nays 131, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 321]

                               YEAS--295

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     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
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     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
     Hinchey
     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
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     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
     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, 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
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--131

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gilman
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Morella
     Nadler
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     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--8

     Condit
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Markey
     Serrano
     Smith (TX)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1202

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin changed his 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.

                          ____________________