[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S103-S104]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              THE FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINIC ENTRANCE ACT

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, prior to coming here I was a trial lawyer. I 
started out representing insurance companies. I was a defense lawyer 
representing insureds who were involved in automobile accidents and 
other problems. I went to court and tried those cases--lots of them. 
Then, in the second part of my career, I represented people who had 
been injured. We sued, in effect, insurance companies. I also had the 
opportunity and the experience to represent people charged with crimes. 
I took those cases to juries. I had the good fortune to ask juries 
approximately 100 times to understand my client's plight and to, 
hopefully, be an advocate for what was right. I came to the conclusion 
that what juries do, with rare exception, is arrive at the right 
decision. It may not always be for the right reason, but it is usually 
the right decision. I believe in our system of justice, where juries 
make decisions.
  I believe in following the law. What I mean by that is, if there is a 
law on the books, or the Supreme Court has interpreted that law, I 
believe it should be followed. There is a very controversial issue that 
is always before this body dealing with the reproductive rights of 
women. It doesn't matter how you feel, whether you are a so-called pro-
choice or pro-life person; a group of Senators and Congressmen, 
Democrats and Republicans, pro-life and pro-choice Members, joined 
together to pass what is called the Freedom of Access to Clinic 
Entrance Act, called FACE.
  In effect, the law said if there is a legally constituted entity, 
such as planned Parenthood, that is giving women reproductive advice, 
and on occasion they also perform abortions --it is legal. Some of us 
may not agree with what they are doing. But, it is a legal entity. They 
are doing legal things. But FACE said you can't go to one of these 
entities and stop them from doing business, because if you do, you will 
violate the law.
  A number of people who were unwilling to follow the law were sued as 
a result of their doing the wrong thing in the FACE States, and a court 
of law--like those courts I just talked about--ruled against them.
  For example, Randall Terry is a person who is opposed to abortion. He 
sought to intimidate and do acts of violence at abortion clinics. A 
court awarded $1.6 million to the people who sued him. He acknowledged 
his intent in doing harm, and he said: I am going to file bankruptcy. 
Indeed, He filed bankruptcy to avoid the judgement.
  Another person by the name of Bonnie Behn of Buffalo, NC, filed for 
bankruptcy to discharge a debt of some $36,000 because she violated a 
court order regarding a local clinic where there was an established 
buffer zone around the clinic. Money damages were assessed against her. 
She filed for bankruptcy.
  These and other acts I think are just out of line. People who do not 
believe in our system of justice obviously don't believe in our trial 
by jury system. They don't believe in courts having the ability to 
award damages when they do something wrong. In effect, they believe the 
law is for everybody but them. Having violated the law, the judgment is 
rendered against them. They say: We are going to discharge this debt in 
bankruptcy. The debt lien means nothing.
  That is why I joined with Senator Charles Schumer of New York in 
amendment No. 2763 to say that if people do this, they cannot discharge 
these debts in bankruptcy. I believe that very strongly.
  When I practiced law, I also did some bankruptcy work. I learned very 
quickly that people who willfully violate the law by willful, wanton 
acts should not discharge their debts to bankruptcy. In fact, one of 
the things we looked at was, if somebody was a drunk driver, they 
should not be able to discharge that debt in bankruptcy.
  We have made sure that is now the law because the court said, well, 
there wasn't intent and therefore it wasn't willful and wanton. The 
courts have said in various cases, for example, that if one is charged 
with drunk driving, they can discharge those debts in bankruptcy. In 
these cases, we have allowed these individuals to discharge their debts 
in bankruptcy. They should not be able to do that. This amendment would 
stop that.
  We have had some real difficulties in recent years. We have to have 
people respond in monetary damages. Why do we have to have them respond 
in money damages? Because there have been in the last 10 years 2,000 
reported acts of violence against abortion providers, including 
bombing, arson, death threats, kidnaping, assaults, and over 38,000 
reported acts of disruption, excluding bomb threats and pickets. 
Murders have taken place. Clinic workers constantly face the threat of 
murder. Since 1993, doctors, clinic employees, clinic escorts, and 
security guards have been murdered. In addition to the murders that 
have been accomplished, we have had 16 attempted murders.
  These providers face violence, threat, and intimidation. In addition 
to the two murders in 1998, we have had 19 cases where people threw 
what they called butyric acid. It burns people who come in contact with 
it. It smells very bad. In fact, the facility where this acid is thrown 
becomes inoperable. Clinic workers must take extraordinary measures for 
protection. They have to vary routes to work and call police if they 
receive suspicion packages, which they do all the time. They are 
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on glass, guards, security 
cameras, metal detectors, and security devices. These are lawful 
businesses. We have to make sure we live in a law-abiding society.
  Anti-choice violence and terror is worsening every day, and one of 
the reasons is that these people flaunt the law. They throw this acid. 
They intimidate people, recognizing that there is no way they are going 
to have to respond in money damages.
  I commend and applaud Senator Schumer for offering this amendment. 
The amendment is part of those that have been accepted as amendments 
that will be taken up on the bankruptcy bill. There is only a half hour 
of time that Senator Schumer has to make his case.
  I hope this body, both the majority and minority, will overwhelmingly 
support this legislation. This has nothing to do with how you feel 
about the matter of choice; that is, whether you are pro-choice or pro-
life. What it has to do with is whether or not you are going to support 
the law and whether you believe in our system of justice.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S104]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized pursuant to a 
previous order.

                          ____________________