[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 41 (Wednesday, April 5, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1771-H1801]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H1771]]
                 PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 457 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 457

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     3660) to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-
     birth abortions. The bill shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. After passage of H.R. 3660, it shall be in order to 
     take from the Speaker's table S. 1692 and to consider the 
     Senate bill in the House. It shall be in order to move to 
     strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and 
     to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 3660 as 
     passed by the House. All points of order against that motion 
     are waived. If the motion is adopted and the Senate bill, as 
     amended, is passed, then it shall be in order to move that 
     the House insist on its amendment to S. 1692 and request a 
     conference with the Senate thereon.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 457 is a closed rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 3660, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000. 
H. Res. 457 provides 2 hours of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  House Resolution 457 provides that, after passage of H.R. 3660, it 
shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table S. 1692, consider it 
in the House, and to move to strike all after the enacting clause and 
insert the text of H.R. 3660 as passed by the House.
  The rule also waives all points of order against the motion to strike 
and insert. It provides that if the motion is adopted and the Senate 
bill as amended is passed, then it shall be in order that the House 
insist on its amendment and request a conference on the bill.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions, as is the right of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not take time here to discuss the grizzly nature 
of this procedure at issue. Many of the other speakers today will 
address that. I would like to briefly note, however, that this rule 
allows the House to take this latest step in the ongoing saga of the 
effort to ban the dreadful partial-birth abortion procedure.
  Legislation has passed this House by a veto-proof majority in the 
past two Congresses. The vote today will be the seventh time the issue 
has come before the House in the past 5 years. In fact, the bill we 
debate today has been adjusted from previous texts to account for the 
growing body of law dealing with partial-birth abortion.
  While the President has prevented Congress from taking the action 
that the overwhelming majority of Americans support, the States have 
taken the lead on this issue. I urge my colleagues to stand today with 
the American people to preserve unborn life by supporting this rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this closed rule. The majority 
claims to favor full and free debate on important issues; however, on 
this controversial bill, the majority has chosen to prohibit any 
amendments from being offered.
  I must also voice my strong concerns with the bill made in order by 
this rule, H.R. 3660, the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban.
  Once again we have anti-choice legislation on the House floor. Like 
most of us, my schedule as a Member of Congress is erratic, but each 
year I have discovered that one of the legislative constants is that 
the House leadership finds plenty of time to force consideration of 
anti-choice legislation. As the Washington Post noted this morning, and 
I quote, ``The measure is probably unconstitutional and certainly bad 
policy, but the House is to take it up today for the third time in 5 
years.''
  This legislation has been fast tracked through Congress, denied input 
from other Members of Congress or the benefit of the subcommittee and 
full committee markup. But what is most offensive about the timing of 
the legislation is not simply the lack of debate time, it is the fact 
that the legislation is breathing down the neck of an upcoming Supreme 
Court hearing on the constitutionality of Nebraska's abortion law and 
is a blatant attempt to try to influence the court.
  The fundamental principles of Roe v. Wade already protect a viable 
fetus. Roe recognizes that the State has a compelling interest in the 
welfare of a fetus that can survive outside the womb. And none of us, 
none of us, approve late-term abortions, except in circumstances to 
save the life and health of the mother.
  But under this ban, the fundamental principles of the Roe v. Wade 
decision are gutted. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a 
woman's life and health must be protected throughout pregnancy. And no 
advances in medicine yet have guaranteed a perfect pregnancy. Due to 
the lack of health exceptions in abortion bans, President Clinton has 
vetoed similar legislation time and time again, and this bill is no 
different. It makes no exception for protecting a mother's health.
  Moreover, the language of the bill is so intentionally vague that 
both doctors and the courts have scoffed at it, asserting that this 
terminology could ban all procedures regardless of the viability 
thresholds guaranteed by Roe. In fact, it would make it a criminal 
offense for a physician to perform not just one particular procedure, 
but the safest and most common procedure in reproductive health care.
  Even the American Medical Association, which originally supported 
this legislation, no longer does. And can we blame them? What is a 
doctor to do, faced with losing his or her livelihood and potential 
jail time? I can assure my colleagues that the primary concern of most 
physicians will not be protecting the health of the woman if their own 
livelihood is at stake. Why would they risk 2 years in prison and loss 
of their license when they could simply make a decision?
  The proponents of this legislation would have us believe that this 
ban will prohibit one procedure used to perform only post-viability 
abortions; that is the point after which the fetus can live on its own. 
However, the bill is written so that it could ban safe abortion 
procedures used prior to fetal viability.
  Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances of late abortions, in most all 
cases, these are fetuses who are either badly malformed or in a 
condition that really threatens the health of the mother. In most cases 
these babies are desperately wanted, and there is no other choice to be 
made. It is heartbreaking for parents to have to make this choice, but 
it is even more heartbreaking for them not to be allowed to because a 
legislative body has said no.
  By introducing this ban in tandem with the critical Supreme Court 
case, and at the start of an election year, the proponents of the bill 
are not just chipping away at the right to choose, they are taking a 
jackhammer to it. The American people have told us time and time again 
that when faced with life and death decisions they want to confide in 
their doctor, their family, and whomever else they choose to consult, 
but they never say they would like to consult their local 
Congressperson.
  Throughout the managed care debate, Congress has said to the people 
``we promise to put medical decisions back into the hands of the 
patients and the doctors,'' and yet with this vote today that promise 
is turned on its head. Congress, like HMOs, will dictate life and 
health decisions for women, not their doctors, their families or 
spiritual advisers.

[[Page H1772]]

  It is unconscionable for this Congress to place its political agenda 
ahead of a woman's ability to have access to safe and appropriate 
health care. Like any other patient, a woman deserves to receive the 
best care based on the circumstances of their particular situation.
  Mr. Speaker, we will hear arguments from staunchly anti-choice 
members who may resort to inflammatory charts and graphic images to 
pledge their support of the ban. But we will also hear from Members who 
are deeply concerned about the legislation and the precedent it would 
set. So far as I know, this Congress, nor any previous Congress, has 
ever outlawed a medical procedure.
  But at the end of the day, after all the political fights subside, we 
must ask ourselves one fundamental question: Do American women matter? 
As a Member of Congress, the mother of three daughters, and a long-time 
advocate of women's health, I strongly believe the health of women 
matters in America.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and no on the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Like many Americans, Mr. Speaker, I am greatly concerned about 
abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious social 
political problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits 
abortion has significantly contributed to our violent culture and our 
careless attitude toward liberty.
  As an obstetrician-gynecologist, I can assure my colleagues that the 
partial-birth abortion procedure is the most egregious legally 
permitted act known to man. Decaying social and moral attitudes decades 
ago set the stage for the accommodated Roe vs. Wade ruling that 
nationalizes all laws dealing with abortion. The fallacious privacy 
argument the Supreme Court used must some day be exposed for the fraud 
that it is.
  Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the 
continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence 
that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human 
experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and 
minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stems from 
the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally 
should never have occurred.
  The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would 
be a Supreme Court that would refuse to deal with the issues of 
violence, recognizing that for all such acts the Constitution defers to 
the States. It is constitutionally permitted to limit Federal courts 
jurisdiction in particular issues. Congress should do precisely that 
with regard to abortion. It would be a big help in returning this issue 
to the States.
  H.R. 3660, unfortunately, takes a different approach, and one that is 
constitutionally flawed. Although H.R. 3660 is poorly written, it does 
serve as a vehicle to condemn the 1973 Supreme Court usurpation of 
State law that has legalized the horrible partial-birth abortion 
procedure.
  Never in the Founders' wildest dreams would they have believed that 
one day the interstate commerce clause, written to permit free trade 
among the States, would be used to curtail an act that was entirely 
under State jurisdiction. There is no interstate activity in an 
abortion. If there were, that activity would not be prohibited but, 
rather, protected by the original intent of the interstate commerce 
clause.
  The abuse of the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce 
laws clause is precisely the reason our Federal Government no longer 
conforms to the constitutional dictates but, instead, is out of control 
in its growth and scope. H.R. 3660 thus endorses the entire process 
which has so often been condemned by limited government advocates when 
used by the authoritarians as they constructed the welfare State.
  We should be more serious and cautious when writing Federal law, even 
when seeking praise-worthy goals. H.R. 3660 could have been written 
more narrowly, within constitutional constraints, while emphasizing 
State responsibility, and still serve as an instrument for condemning 
the wicked partial-birth abortion procedure.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this 
rule and to the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it is like Yogi Berra and deja vu all over again. It 
could be 1996, it could be 1998; but it is 2000. If anybody had 
forgotten that this was not an election year, because the presidential 
primaries have kind of waned, all they have to do is to look and see 
that this bill is up again and that it is being brought to the floor 
under a closed rule.
  Now, my colleagues and my dear colleague from Florida, the sponsor of 
this bill, knows this bill is not going to become law this year. It is 
going to be vetoed by the President and then it is going to be sent 
back here later, and it will sit at the desk. And I would bet probably 
around September, or the middle of September, pretty close to the 
general elections in November, the leadership will decide to roll this 
bill out again. They will roll it out, and there will not be sufficient 
votes, certainly not in the other body and probably not in this body 
this year, to override the President's veto, but it will make for good 
press releases. Our friends at the NRCC will roll out some press 
releases on this, and it will be a political issue.
  That is what this is really about. The fact is, if we really wanted 
to address the issue of late-term abortions, which I do and I think the 
vast majority of this House wants to do, then we would bring the Hoyer-
Greenwood bill to the floor and debate it. Now, I know the gentleman 
from Florida has some problems with the Hoyer-Greenwood bill. Fair 
enough. Bring it to the floor under an open rule, and let us debate the 
issues.
  This House, since its creation, has debated and written the laws of 
this Nation. But the Republican leadership has decided that only a few 
men in the leadership role can decide what the laws are; what is really 
important to the health of women or not. They are going to decide that 
rather than the whole House. But is that not what democracy is all 
about? Is that not the essence of the people's House, the House of 
Representatives; that we decide the laws, we debate the laws? 
Apparently, that is not the essence of the Republican leadership.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill).
  (Mr. HILL of Montana asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time. I rise to support the rule, and I also support the bill.
  I want to describe for the House again what this procedure is. A 
doctor artificially dilates the cervix, creating an opening that is of 
adequate size for the baby's delivery. Then the doctor, guided by an 
ultrasound device, takes hold of one of the baby's legs with a forceps. 
Then that leg is pulled into the birth canal and is fully delivered.
  Then the other leg is accessed and it is delivered, followed by the 
baby's entire body, everything except the head. We would commonly refer 
to this as a breech delivery.
  The doctor then uses one hand to trace up the spine of the baby up to 
the base of the baby's skull. And then with a Metzenbaum scissors, the 
doctor penetrates the base of that skull with those scissors and 
spreads the scissors open to create a passage large enough for a 
suction catheter to be inserted into the skull. And then the baby's 
brains are extracted with the suction device, and that causes the skull 
to collapse. At that point, the baby dies. And then the baby is fully 
delivered. The placenta is subsequently delivered, and all the remains 
are then discarded as medical waste.
  The AMA, Mr. Speaker, says that this is not good medicine. Dr. Koop,

[[Page H1773]]

former surgeon general, says this is never medically necessary. 
Everybody in this room knows that this is wrong, that it is not legally 
and it is not morally defensible. The way for us to end it is to vote 
for this rule and to vote for this bill today.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very 
much for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I entered this body in 1995 with enormous hopes and 
aspirations for this Congress meeting up to its mission and its 
obligations and its high constitutional calling. And that is, of 
course, that it includes the protection of the American people at the 
highest levels.
  As a freshman, I wanted to do good and still offer myself for that 
purpose. It was interesting that was called the Gingrich revolution. We 
came in under the auspices of what many have called the Contract on 
America.
  I remember my colleague, Pat Schroeder, introduced me to the high 
calling again on the Committee on the Judiciary and its importance. I 
am reminded as I go to elementary schools, in indicating that I am on 
the Committee on the Judiciary, the eyes are sparkling as I speak about 
the Constitution.
  But here we stand again, Mr. Speaker, again not calling on those high 
values and respecting the constitutionality of our responsibility, but 
yet, in many instances, although I respect those who have come to the 
floor to support this legislation, taking legislation that ultimately 
has been noted as having unconstitutional aspects of it and again and 
again bringing it to the floor of the House.
  I remember those first years when we listened to the voices of women 
who cried out to us not to have this legislation and indicated that the 
medical procedure that they had to ultimately give consent for to their 
physician and to make sure that they either lived or that they would 
have the opportunity to procreate in the future, it was a highly 
personal decision, it was one they wished they could not make. And yet 
we bring to the floor legislation that holds a physician criminal.
  In the Committee on Rules yesterday, no one would simply provide for 
an amendment that I had offered that simply clarified that the woman, 
in essence the victim, would not be held civilly liable, would not be 
open to lawsuit if she, out of desperation to save not only her life, 
but to add to the ability of her having a family would have to consent 
to a procedure that her doctor advised that she might have.
  But yet here we come again and, as my colleague has noted, so 
appropriately in an election year, to bring forward clearly an aspect 
of legislation that should be left to the private determinations under 
the ninth amendment under the Constitution that has been noted before.
  In addition, the Greenwood-Hoyer amendment, where 40 States have 
already recognized the importance of designing this legislation in the 
same manner as that amendment, an amendment that would have garnered 
the support of so many of us, this amendment, however, was not allowed.
  It has come to my attention that even in Texas we have a law 
regarding the medical procedure since 1987 that protects the life and 
health of the mother similar to the Greenwood-Hoyer amendment, yet the 
Rules Committee saw fit to vote even against this reasonable language.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a serious debate. I would ask that we would 
vote against this rule, respecting my colleagues who believe in this 
particular legislation. This is wrong headed and wrong directed. I ask 
my colleagues to vote against the rule and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this 
important matter. I am disturbed that the Committee is inhibiting a 
full and fair debate about this critical matter.
  ``The Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2000,'' H.R. 3660, is extreme and 
unconstitutional legislation that would endanger women's health because 
it lacks an exception even for serious threats to a woman's health. If 
enacted, H.R. 3660 would lead to undue government interference in 
doctor-patient relationships by subjecting physicians to arrest and 
imprisonment for using their best medical judgment in accordance with 
the wishes of their patients.
  I am distressed that this committee refused to even consider any 
amendments to such a momentous piece of legislation that would 
essentially eradicate a women's freedom of choice as we have known it 
for over 25 years.
  Despite proponents comments to the contrary, H.R. 3660 would actually 
allow civil actions against the woman who has already undergone a 
traumatic experience and essentially open the window for all types of 
abortions to be banned.
  This is why amendments should have been allowed to bring this 
legislation in accordance with current legal doctrine.
  If allowed, my amendments would have allowed Members to express their 
views whether the viability of the fetus should determine whether this 
ban should or should not apply and they would have ensured that money 
damages cannot be sought against a woman that has a ``partial 
abortion.''
  The proposed statute is simply not a restriction on late-term 
abortion. To the contrary, H.R. 3660 is extreme and unconstitutionally 
legislation would endanger women's health because it simply undermines 
a woman's right to choose.
  It is imperative that we take the proper safeguards not to allow any 
group to take advantage of this emotionally charged issue for financial 
gain. Although we live in a litigious society, we should be careful to 
not provide incentives for frivolous reasons.
  Termination of a pregnancy is already a tragic event for any woman. 
When one is faced with such a decision, they should simply not be 
thinking of the adverse consequences of potential litigation. That is 
simply cruel to the woman.
  Members should be afforded an opportunity to consider reasonable 
alternatives to penalties contained in the legislation for so-called 
``late term'' abortions.
  Because the ambiguous wording of this bill creates the potential to 
ban all forms of abortions in violation of Roe v. Wade, while also 
leaving open the possibility for the woman to be prosecuted under this 
new statute, it is necessary to add clarifying language.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe many Members would want the opportunity to be 
heard on this crucial matter. Private medical decisions belong with the 
woman, their families, their religious leader, and the physicians, not 
politicians.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) that what she so derisively calls the Contract on 
America has been passed, 70 percent of which has been signed by 
President Clinton.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher.)
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder) bringing this bill to the floor. I stand to speak 
today to support this bill.
  It is a day that my daughter back home, surrounded by her mother, my 
mother, and my mother-in-law, are all viewing right now as she is 
having an ultrasound this morning to look at the child within her womb. 
There is a lot of excitement about that, and there should be.
  It reminds me of the quote from Hubert Humphry, who says, ``The moral 
test of government is how that government treats those that are in the 
dawn of life.'' That is what this bill is about.
  What is it about? It is about children. It is about decency. It is 
about compassion and love. It is about putting aside our selfish 
desires, whatever desperate situation we are in. And I agree that there 
are some desperate situations, and I have seen those, but setting those 
aside to look at the interest of the most vulnerable among us, those, 
as Hubert Humphry said, are in the dawn of life.
  We have heard the discussions of the details of this procedure. We 
may not need to discuss how barbaric and gruesome a procedure that we 
wish to forbid here today. For I believe that all know, each one of us, 
everyone, deep down in our hearts, that killing a living, viable child 
who has made only a partial entry into this world of opportunity is 
wrong and morally inexcusable.
  The President has vetoed this bill several times. Mr. Speaker, I 
would ask him that he reconsider, that he turn from his friends on the 
radical left and look deep into his heart and into the eyes of 
children, those eyes that glisten with hope for a future, and that he 
would sign this bill.

[[Page H1774]]

  It is a bill of decency, goodness, fairness, and it is a bill of 
hope, a bill filled with the dreams, the dreams of those that want to 
come to know the joys of opportunity to be all that they can be.
  I know that there are those that may consider the debate as one 
whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, but this goes well beyond that 
debate. This debate goes to are we going to be judged as a Nation, as 
Hubert Humphry said, a Nation whose moral test is decided on how we 
treat those at the dawn of life. This bill is about those that are at 
the very dawn of life and are we going to protect their opportunity, 
their future, and their dreams. I trust we can.
  I encourage the President to sign this bill for decency, for 
fairness, and for moral integrity of this Nation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to late-term 
abortions. But when the health of the mother is at risk in tragic 
cases, that choice should be made by a woman and her doctor, not by 
politicians in Washington, D.C.
  This bill would prohibit abortions even when a mother's health is at 
risk. We have no right in this Congress to make that health decision 
for other people's wives and other people's daughters. No Member of 
this House has the right to risk any other woman's fertility, no 
Member.
  What this Congress should do is to pass a bill that outlaws all late-
term abortion procedures, not just one procedure like this bill does, 
and then include an exemption in rare tragic cases where a mother's 
health is at risk.
  This is the kind of bill I helped pass in Texas in 1987. It was a 
bipartisan bill, unlike this one, designed not for political press 
releases and sound bites and attack ads. It was designed to save the 
lives of babies, something this bill would not do.
  I would like to ask the supporters of this bill one question they 
refused to answer for the last 5 years. If they have such a low opinion 
of America's women that they truly believe mothers want to maliciously 
kill viable, healthy babies late in pregnancy just moments before 
natural childbirth, if they really believe that, how does outlawing one 
procedure while keeping all other procedures legal save even one baby's 
life?
  The truth is this bill does not save one life, and pro-life citizens 
and leaders have even admitted that. The deceptive secret of this bill 
is that it would keep it perfectly legal to have late-term abortions 
under this bill, just use a different procedure.
  Babies are not saved by this bill. But sadly, in tragic, sad cases, 
mothers' health and their ability to have children in the future will 
be put at risk.
  The truth is that if there is one frivolous killing of one healthy 
baby after viability anywhere in America, that is one too many. And we 
would all want to prevent such a case.
  The real tragedy is not that this bill will not become law. The real 
tragedy is that supporters of this bill could have added a health 
exemption into this bill at any point during the last 5 years and we 
would have outlawed all late-term abortion procedures, not just one 
procedure.
  Let us vote no on this rule and no on this bill and then do what we 
should do. Let us pass a law that will outlaw all late-term abortion 
procedures while protecting women's health.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards) who said that the Texan law was bipartisan, unlike this 
one, that the last time it met the floor of the House it got nearly 300 
votes, including the vote of his leader.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and urge my 
colleagues to vote for this good bill.
  Partial-birth abortions should have been made illegal long before 
now. But the supporters of this procedure continue to tell us that it 
is needed. They claim that, without this procedure, the health and even 
the lives of mothers in this country will be at risk. By saying this, 
they seem to suggest that those of us who want to ban this procedure 
are somehow being insensitive or cruel.
  But former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop says the procedure ``is 
never medically necessary to protect a mother's life or her future 
fertility. On the contrary,'' he says, ``this procedure can pose a 
significant threat to both.''
  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says ``there 
are no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only 
option to save the life of a mother and to preserve the health of a 
woman.''
  In 1995, a panel of 12 doctors representing the American Medical 
Association voted unanimously to recommend banning partial-birth 
abortion. The American Medical Association, the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the most respected doctor in 
America are all telling the truth.
  But not everyone is.
  Not too long ago, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National 
Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted that he lied through his 
teeth when he claimed that partial-birth abortions are rare and only on 
women whose lives are in danger or whose babies had severe defects. He 
also admitted that he had lied about how frequent partial-birth 
abortions are. There are thousands every year in America.
  What Mr. Fitzsimmons showed us is that there are pro-abortion 
activists in this country so extreme in their position, so completely 
unwilling to listen to reason, that they will defend even this 
procedure which is indistinguishable from cold-blooded infanticide.
  Stabbing a baby in the back of the neck with scissors is gruesome, 
even if his head remains an inch inside the birth canal.
  Mr. Speaker, partial-birth abortion is so gruesome and so barbaric 
that it must be stopped immediately. It is completely unnecessary. It 
is in every case unjustifiable and in no case the lesser of two evils.
  The will of the American people has been consistently clear in every 
poll on this issue. The House and Senate have both passed this ban 
before by large margins. Clearly, reasonable and thinking Americans 
want this ban to become law. A few extremists continue to stand in the 
way. We will be asked to recommit this bill so that they can add on a 
provision providing an exemption for what they call ``mental health.'' 
That will, of course, mean there is no ban at all. In fact, if they are 
having a bad day, they can have a partial-birth abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a good bill before us. It does not need to be 
changed. It already does what we know is the right thing to do. We 
should stop playing games and pass this good legislation so that 
America can go back to believing that their Government stands for 
decency. America knows that partial-birth abortion is wrong. They want 
us to do something about it.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the ban on partial-birth abortion 
today.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to make clear that the AMA no longer 
supports this bill and that the gynecologists never did.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Tauscher).

                              {time}  1100

  Mrs. TAUSCHER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have prepared remarks; and I am an original cosponsor 
of this bill, but I cannot let the comments of the previous speaker and 
other speakers go by. I think that it is absolutely a horror for the 
American people to be told by any Member of Congress that American 
women may have a bad day and decide to have a partial-birth abortion. 
That is certainly not the fact, and that is certainly demeaning to 
every woman in this country. How dare anyone suggest that this is 
anything but about a very tragic, personally debilitating scenario, 
when very late in a pregnancy a mother and a father are told that that 
baby will not survive outside the womb and that medical procedures may 
be necessary to save the life and the health of that mother. Let us 
talk about the facts, ladies and gentlemen. Let us not cloud this. And 
let us not demean American women by suggesting that because they are 
having a bad day, they are going to get rid of a very precious child.

[[Page H1775]]

  Let us ban late-term abortions. There is no one here that is pro-
choice that is pro-abortion, but there are people here unfortunately 
that will twist the facts for their own political gain. This is a 
shameful day for this House. It is a shameful day that we will not 
protect the health and the life of American women and that we will not 
honor the mothers of this country by acting as if they can actually 
take care of their own children.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I think anytime a woman chooses to abort a 
baby, it is a difficult decision. And it is a tragedy regardless of the 
reason for it. What we just heard is not an accurate representation of 
partial-birth abortion. All you have to do is look at the facts from 
Kansas this year. So far this year, there have been 180 partial-birth 
abortions performed in Kansas. Seven of them were from women from 
Kansas. The rest of them were from out of State. Not one of those 
babies had a lethal defect. There was nothing that was going to keep 
them from living an adequate and acceptable life. We can say that 
partial-birth abortion is about terminating pregnancies on babies that 
are not viable. But the facts do not bear that out. Does it 
occasionally happen? Yes. When it happens for a nonviable baby, it is 
being done only for the convenience of the abortionist. It is not being 
done for the safety and health of the woman. Because in fact if it was 
for the safety and health of the woman, they would terminate the 
pregnancy in a very much different way. They would not put at risk her 
reproductive future. They would not put her at risk for a pulmonary 
embolism from amniotic fluid, they would not put at risk the ability 
for her cervix to maintain its muscular strength by dilating it against 
its will. The facts about partial-birth abortion are that it is done 
for the abortionist, not for the woman. I know that because I have 
helped thousands of women deliver children. I have done D&Xs. I know 
the procedure very well. It is the last procedure I would ever do to 
help a woman eliminate a nonviable child. That does not go to say how 
right are we in expressing our knowledge, scientifically based, on 
whether or not we are accurate about a child's viability.
  So let us dispel the three myths that are put forward. Partial-birth 
abortion in this country is not being done for the health of the woman. 
It is being done for the convenience of the abortionist. That is number 
one. Number two, it is not being done because children have lethal 
defects. It is being done so that late-term abortions can be 
accomplished. That is why it is being done. Number three, this 
procedure puts the health of a woman at much greater risk than any of 
three other procedures that could be used to terminate her pregnancy.
  We can agree to disagree on whether abortion is right or wrong. I do 
not have any problem with that, and I have a great deal of respect for 
those who disagree with me on that issue. But you cannot confuse the 
medical facts of the risk that a woman is put to when this procedure is 
used on her. It is a marked increase in risk for her health. If in fact 
it was an emergency to eliminate this baby, we would do a saline 
injection, take the life of the baby and put prostaglandin in and have 
the baby deliver head first. The baby would be dead, it would come out, 
and the woman would have labored it out. But instead, we do not do 
that. We put in japonicum, which is seaweed, we allow it to dilate up, 
then we dilate the cervix further, we reach in with instruments, we 
turn the baby around, we pull the baby out, puncture the head, collapse 
the head and pull the baby the rest of the way out and then forcefully 
extract a placenta. When we do that, we expose the woman to loss of 
fertility and loss of competency of her cervix, we expose the woman to 
significant hemorrhage, and we expose the woman to fluid embolus from 
amniotic fluid. Nobody who is thinking about the woman would use this 
procedure.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to speak specifically on the rule, 
because it is the rule that shows that this body is not serious about 
achieving consensus on this very serious and troublesome question. 
Because there is, after all, an alternative which has a very good 
chance of getting that consensus, the Hoyer-Greenwood alternative. Many 
like me would be reluctant to support that alternative because it 
compromises the health language; but in the name of getting a consensus 
on so troublesome, and deservedly so, an issue, we could get there this 
time. We are told this time it is constitutional. And the reason the 
other side has to talk to us about constitutionality this time is that 
the courts have handed them their heads. Not the Congress, not the 
President.
  It is the courts that have told you you are in violation of the 
Constitution. The reason Hoyer-Greenwood is obviously a much preferable 
alternative boils down to two. The Republicans come forward with a bill 
that uses inflammatory lay language. Basically, it is a gotcha 30-
second ad. Of course it does not speak to the gestational period, so 
the, quote, ``living fetus'' could be when it is, I do not know, 3 
weeks old, and you could be prosecuted under this language. Would you 
think this has a moment's chance of standing up in court?
  Hoyer-Greenwood, on the other hand, makes it clear that it is after 
viability. You ask the average American, you talk about after 
viability, they know what you are talking about. Hoyer-Greenwood says 
seventh, eighth and ninth month, unless it is very serious, you are not 
going to get an abortion. I do not know why that is not good enough for 
you. I am sure it is good enough for the American people. Serious 
health consequences? That means that people on my side who believe this 
should be between a woman and her doctor are indeed accepting a real 
compromise. It is you who are unwilling to accept a compromise, because 
Hoyer-Greenwood by limiting late-term abortions to the serious adverse 
health consequences of the woman virtually guarantees that there will 
be few seventh, eighth, and ninth month abortions.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today as one of the people who is under political 
attack by right-to-life on this issue which in my State is very clearly 
a political issue, not a policy issue, because they say I want to keep 
partial-birth abortions. I say I am a cosponsor of the bill of the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Greenwood) that says not just partial-birth abortion but all late-
term abortion should be illegal in this country except to save the life 
of the mother or if she has a serious health consequence, a serious 
threat to her life or her health. That is what this is about. This is 
an alternative that will be signed by the President and could very 
quickly be the law of the land to make it clear that not just one 
procedure but every late-term abortion procedure would be banned except 
if the mother's life is threatened or there is a serious health 
consequence to her continuing the pregnancy. And then she could still 
continue the pregnancy; but it would be her choice, not the politicians 
in Washington's choice. That is what this is about.
  I find it along with my colleagues, the women of this House, totally 
offensive as a mother of two beautiful children to say that women in 
the final weeks of pregnancy would just have a bad day and decide to 
terminate a pregnancy that they had carried almost to term. We are 
talking about women who want children, who are bringing this child into 
the world, who are excited, who have put together the crib and the 
wallpaper in the baby's room and are excited and get to the point at 
the end where they find out that the doctor says, we have got a serious 
problem here and we are going to have to sit down and talk about it and 
there is going to have to be some decisions made because there is 
something that has gone wrong. When that happens, I want the woman, the 
doctor, her family and her faith and not the people in this room making 
that decision.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

[[Page H1776]]

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the gentlewoman from 
Michigan to look at the experience in Kansas. Every one of the partial 
birth abortions that have been provided for this year have been on the 
basis of the health exception. A health exception for the woman. Eight 
of them from Kansas, seven or eight from Kansas, the rest from outside 
of Kansas but on a health exception. Very few of those were based on 
the physical health of the woman, but on the fact that she did not want 
to have a baby.
  Now, I understand that in our country that is okay. That is legal 
today. I want to make one other point, that we sometimes forget. Why is 
partial-birth abortion out there? Because if you abort a baby a 
different way, guess what? The baby is born alive. When the baby is 
born alive in most States if it is at viability, then you have to 
express the will of the State to do everything you can to keep that 
child alive. So we abort a baby, have a baby that is viable, and then 
we work to keep it alive because that is what the States say we must 
do. So partial-birth abortion is developed so you deliver a dead baby. 
That is why it is there, so you get around this idea that it is alive.
  Again, I would remind the vast majority, upwards of 90 percent of all 
partial-birth abortions are on absolutely normal babies. Normal. Not 
abnormal. I have delivered tons of abnormal children. I have dealt with 
every consequence associated with terrible errors in reproduction. They 
are tragedies. But to couch partial-birth abortion on the basis of 1 or 
2 percent of those issues, and that is what you are really talking 
about, 1 or 2 percent, not the vast majority, to justify it as a means 
to terminate the life of a well, healthy child is unconscionable. Most 
women if they truly had informed consent would never allow partial-
birth abortion to be performed on them.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was puzzled to hear the 
gentleman from Oklahoma say that they were not for physical health 
reasons in most cases. The reason I say that is I went to the Committee 
on Rules to ask for the right to offer an amendment that would have 
allowed this only in cases where there was severe, adverse, long-term 
physical health consequences.

                              {time}  1115

  Now, many do not think that does enough. It would not be enough for 
me to vote for the bill, but at least it would have met that argument.
  So when the gentleman says, oh, but we are just talking about all 
health, not just physical health.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman I would fully 
support that amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and 
he may have a chance to. But I assume that means the gentleman will 
vote against the rule, because I went to the Committee on Rules and 
asked for this amendment to be made in order.
  This bill is being done in the most abusive way ever. Do we want to 
know what is a late-term abortion? The real late-term abortion bill is 
the one that the gentleman from Maryland was not about to offer. Late-
term abortion describes this legislative procedure. We wait until late 
in the term so we can get maximum political advantage, and then we 
abort the legislative procedures; no committee vote, no amendments 
being made in order.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma says well, 1 or 2 percent, so let us try 
to deal with the 1 or 2 percent. That is not what we have. This is a 
bill in search of a veto for use for political purposes. Members who 
sincerely want to restrict this procedure and some would want to 
restrict it more than I would want to, and I might lose on that. But 
the rule is calculated to get a veto. It does not allow what the 
gentleman from Oklahoma talked about.
  The Committee on Rules specifically refused my amendment and many of 
the strongest pro-choice people think my amendment gives away too much; 
I do myself in some ways, but at least the body should be able to vote 
on it. The true late-term bill was the gentleman from Maryland's.
  This is the most outrageous repudiation of the democratic procedure I 
have seen in 20 years. A bill where there is pending constitutional 
litigation where some courts have held this bill, in effect, 
unconstitutional at the circuit court level, does not have any 
committee consideration, comes to the floor with no amendment 
whatsoever, solely for the purpose of being used politically. The money 
that is being spent on this bill ought to be reported to the Federal 
Election Commission as a Republican campaign contribution.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to how much time remains 
on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter) has 9\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it was not so long ago that I stood on the State Capitol 
steps in Denver, Colorado commemorating the 27th anniversary of the 
Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade which guarantees a woman the 
constitutional right to determine her own reproductive destiny. On that 
day I joined Coloradans in urging them to protect this deeply personal 
right and urging them to continue the fight against increasing efforts 
to chip away at these rights for which we fought so hard.
  It strikes me that the House leadership today, if it was interested 
in good policy, not politics, would not have brought this bill to the 
floor. In just a few weeks, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments 
on the substantially similar Nebraska partial-birth abortion ban which 
makes the timing of H.R. 3660 a bit more than suspect.
  If the leadership were really serious about seeking bipartisan 
consensus in passing a law, the Committee on Rules should have 
permitted consideration of the Hoyer-Greenwood substitute, which has 
the strong backing of Members on both sides of the aisle, the promise 
of the President's signature, and the support of sensible policy 
leaders who recognize the vital importance of including health 
exception and a post-viability provision.
  Most importantly, the Hoyer-Greenwood alternative is what Americans 
want. In a recent poll, 88 percent, 88 percent of Americans supported 
the inclusion of a health exception for women. If the leadership were 
really serious about outlawing one particular abortion procedure, they 
would have agreed to consider an alternative to this vague and broadly-
worded piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, if the leadership continues to ask Members of Congress 
to support bad public policy, we must continue to oppose it. For my 
part, I will do all I can to protect a woman's right to choose. Oppose 
this rule, oppose this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Wise).
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Members what I support. Like 
most people, I believe that all late-term abortions should be outlawed 
unless the woman's life is in danger or she would suffer serious health 
problems by continuing the pregnancy.
  Our language would stop far more late-term abortions than will be 
voted on today, but the leadership is not going to allow it.
  I oppose late-term abortions. I cosponsored legislation to outlaw 
them. Mr. Speaker, 88 percent of the American people believe that if a 
woman's life is in danger or there is a serious health problem for the 
woman, there should be an exception. This is only common sense.
  The Congress today votes on eliminating only a single medical 
procedure. Perhaps it may stop a limited number of late-term abortions, 
yet I support language that stops all late-term abortions, regardless 
of medical procedure, unless the woman's life is in danger or

[[Page H1777]]

she will suffer serious health consequences. Abortion is an agonizing 
decision and an agonizing debate, requiring all views, and yet I will 
not be permitted today to protect the woman against serious physical 
health consequences. I oppose the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to this rule. This is an extremely important vote for the Members of 
the House.
  It is simply baffling to me why those who oppose abortion, those who 
are generally referred to as pro-life, are not out here on the floor 
with us saying, this rule should allow the amendment that offers this 
House the choice to ban all post-viability abortions.
  Third-trimester abortions are abhorrent to the American people, and 
they are wrong. But never in our history has this House banned a single 
medical procedure, and it will not work now. It will not accomplish our 
goal in terms of respecting the potential life of a well-developed 
fetus, and it will endanger the legitimate rights of women in the first 
trimester of pregnancy.
  Mr. Speaker, 40 States have the kind of legislation we wanted to 
bring to this floor of the House together in a bipartisan fashion. It 
would ban third trimester abortions by any method. But it would respect 
the right to life of the mother and the right to avoid severe health 
consequences through carrying a hostile pregnancy. Many States have 
this law and it has never, ever been declared unconstitutional, yet the 
only choice we have here today is legislation that in 20 of the 21 
challenges has been declared unconstitutional.
  Sadly, I think we are being denied this right because our legislation 
would pass, because it is the right thing to do for America, it is the 
right thing to do for America's women, it is the right thing to do for 
our children, and it profoundly respects the life of the unborn, the 
life of the mother, and the wholeness of family.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of this issue to vote 
no on this rule. Let us go back to the Committee on Rules. Let the 
Committee on Rules rethink the caliber of debate that should come to 
this floor on such a critical issue. And for once, let us open this 
body to the breadth of debate, to the depth of consideration, that this 
issue deserves.
  I believe there is common ground that could unite all of us. Please, 
oppose the rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, if I understand the rules and procedures of the 
106th Congress, a Member is allowed to speak once on a question before 
the House. Is that accurate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman that 
this resolution is being considered under the hour rule. The gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Linder) was recognized for 1 hour, and he has within 
that time the option to yield to whomever he wants for whatever period 
he wants.
  Mr. OSE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that of the few people in 
our body that have experience with this issue, that we now have an 
attempt to cut off debate. The fact is, I am all too familiar with this 
procedure.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) I think made one 
misstatement, and the fact is that whether this passes or not, it will 
have no effect on first-trimester abortions, none, zero.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, we have testimony from 
physicians that the way the bill is worded, it would indeed have that 
effect, and we have judicial rulings from judges that say the language 
is so broad they would have to rule that way.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in fact, and in 
actuality, this procedure is never used in first trimester, because it 
is way too dangerous. No physician who should be licensed and who 
should continue to be licensed would ever use this procedure in the 
first trimester. So regardless of the testimony, the medical facts are, 
one would never use this procedure in the first trimester.
  The second point I would like to make, as we defend the right of 
women in this country under a health exception to destroy their unborn 
children, we need to talk about how we define death in this country. 
Because we define death in this country as the absence of a heartbeat 
and the absence of brain waves. All 50 States, every territory, upheld 
by the Supreme Court.
  Now, if that is death, let me tell my colleagues what the opposite 
is: present heartbeat, present brain waves. That is life. I say to my 
colleagues, at 41 days past the last menstrual period, every fetus has 
a heartbeat and brain waves.
  So we can have the debate on whether it is not all right for us to 
chew up our unborn; that is not what this debate is about. This debate 
is about whether or not we are going to continue to convenience the 
abortionists with a procedure that put women at risk, even for that 
small percentage of time when we have, as the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut described, a hostile pregnancy.
  Those of us that are pro-life believe all life has value, and we do 
not believe that it is proper to rationalize one moral error with 
another moral error. The first moral error is attaining an unwanted 
pregnancy. The second moral error is to eliminate that pregnancy 
because it inconveniences someone.
  Now, we can talk about this issue, and there are some tragedies, I 
agree. But I also will tell my colleagues that this is never the best 
way to solve those tragedies. I understand why it is out there, I 
understand why it is used, but medically it is never the best way to 
solve those tragedies.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to share a story with my colleagues. This little 
child's name is Jakie Johnson. Jakie Johnson as an encephalic baby. I 
want to describe to my colleagues the difference that would have 
occurred had his mother had a partial-birth abortion. She would have 
had a 3-day procedure where she developed, as she went through the 
procedure, forced dilatation. On the third day the doctor would have 
reached into her womb, ruptured her membranes, the water would have 
drained out, he would have grabbed with tongs, pulled the baby around, 
forced the baby out, collapsed the skull, and the baby would have been 
born dead.
  I want to tell my colleagues what happened with Nancy Johnson and her 
son, Jakie.

                              {time}  1130

  Nancy chose not to terminate her pregnancy. I delivered that baby in 
the middle of the night, alive. That baby died 3 hours later in its 
mother's and father's arms. Now tell me which is the better outcome for 
the mother and father and the child, to have some vague, horrendous, 
risky procedure done, or to have a delivery of a malformed baby which 
dies in its parents' arms?
  If Members think we should abandon the love and caring of a parent as 
a child dies, then Members should vote against this rule. If Members 
think there is something to parenting, loving, and caring, then vote 
for this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult issue. It is an issue which tears 
Americans apart. Almost every American I know values life, values 
children, values those in the dawn of their life, as was said earlier.
  Let me start by accepting the premises put forth by the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the premises as to why this procedure is 
used. Let us accept that. But let us also accept his other proposition, 
that the termination of the pregnancy can be effected by three other 
methods. That is what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) just 
told us minutes ago.
  Then let me turn to the gentleman's assertion that he could have 
supported and would support the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Then let me assert

[[Page H1778]]

that it is my position, the position of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Greenwood), and the position of those of us who ask for this 
amendment, the Hoyer-Greenwood amendment to be made in order, that we 
are opposed to all late-term abortions because we value that viable 
child; because we believe, consistent with the Constitution, the State 
has an interest in ensuring that that child has every opportunity to 
live.
  Yes, as the Supreme Court and the Constitution require, we adopt the 
premise that one must relate to the life of the mother and to the 
health of the mother. As an aside, let me say that most Members and 
clearly most of the public believe that rape and incest ought to be 
exceptions.
  As the good doctor knows, a woman's physical health is not put at 
risk per se because the pregnancy results from either incest or rape. 
It is in fact in the combination of the physical and mental trauma from 
which that pregnancy results. In fact, what we ask for in this, the 
people's House, we send 435 Members, men and women from across the 
breadth of this land to try to come together and make very difficult 
judgments.
  This rule adopts the premise that there is a simplistic approach. It 
is a gag rule. It is a closed rule. It allows for no alternatives but 
the alternative presented, not even by the committee, which did not 
report this bill out. It is in that sense clearly, Mr. Speaker, a 
political, as opposed to substantive, approach to legislating in this 
House.
  This ought not to be on an issue of this consequence, of this 
seriousness. There should have been allowed by this rule the 
opportunity for full debate and alternatives to be considered. My bill, 
the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the 
amendment we sought, said we want to make it the policy of the United 
States of America that late-term abortions are illegal, not allowed, 
prevented; not just one procedure of which the gentleman from Oklahoma 
speaks, but including the three procedures that the gentleman from 
Oklahoma also referred to, by whatever procedure. We want to deal with 
this issue substantively.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to vote against this rule. Let us 
legislate thoughtfully, fully, on this critically important matter, and 
let us prevent and make illegal late-term abortions.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, some years ago Governor Cuomo of New York made the 
statement that you are going to hear on the floor of this House during 
this debate. He said, I am personally opposed to abortion, but I will 
not vote to end a woman's right to choose.
  George Will responded to that in an article in the newspaper, where 
he pointed out that it is a morally incoherent statement. It is morally 
incoherent. He further pointed out that 141 years ago this year, 
Justice Roger B. Taney wrote the Dred Scott decision, which said 
essentially that Americans may continue to own African-Americans as 
chattel. What was not broadly known at that time was, 30 years prior to 
that, Justice Taney released his own slaves to freedom. He personally 
did not believe in slavery, but he did not mind if you did. That is 
morally incoherent.
  There have been three times in the history of this great Nation when 
we have declared portions of our population to be nonpersons under the 
constitutional protections. The first was Native Americans, when we 
took their land. The second was black people, when we took their 
freedom. The third is unborn children, when we are taking their lives.
  We are still repenting for the first two. We face yet the third.
  Let me just close by saying this. When a Nation puts people in jail 
and fines them for destroying the potential life of unborn loggerhead 
turtles and bald eagles, and pays people for destroying the potential 
life of unborn babies, that Nation has lost its way.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if I could just say, in defense of my former Governor 
Mario Cuomo, I say to the gentleman that it is possible to personally 
object to something but not require that everybody else agree with you.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244, 
nays 179, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 102]

                               YEAS--244

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--179

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur

[[Page H1779]]


     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Campbell
     Cook
     Crane
     Klink
     Markey
     Martinez
     Meek (FL)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Oberstar
     Vento

                              {time}  1203

  Mr. LIPINSKI changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above record.
  The motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 102, I was at a meeting in 
the Russell Caucus Room and my beeper didn't go off. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 457, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 3660) to amend title 18, United States Code, 
to ban partial-birth abortions, and ask for its immediate consideration 
in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of H.R. 3660 is as follows:

                               H.R. 3660

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 
     Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 73 the following:

                 ``CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

``Sec.
``1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.

     ``Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

       ``(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion 
     and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this 
     title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. This 
     paragraph shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is 
     necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is 
     endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. This 
     paragraph shall become effective one day after enactment.
       ``(b)(1) As used in this section, the term `partial-birth 
     abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing 
     the abortion deliberately and intentionally--
       ``(A) vaginally delivers some portion of an intact living 
     fetus until the fetus is partially outside the body of the 
     mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the 
     person knows will kill the fetus while the fetus is partially 
     outside the body of the mother; and
       ``(B) performs the overt act that kills the fetus while the 
     intact living fetus is partially outside the body of the 
     mother.
       ``(2) As used in this section, the term `physician' means a 
     doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to 
     practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the 
     doctor performs such activity, or any other individual 
     legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: 
     Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician 
     or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform 
     abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-
     birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this 
     section.
       ``(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time 
     she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the 
     mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of 
     the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in 
     a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the 
     pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or 
     the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
       ``(2) Such relief shall include--
       ``(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and 
     physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
       ``(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of 
     the partial-birth abortion.
       ``(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this 
     section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on 
     whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the 
     life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical 
     disorder, illness or injury.
       ``(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that 
     issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the 
     defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial 
     for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take 
     place.
       ``(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is 
     performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a 
     conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under 
     section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:
``74. Partial-birth abortions...............................1531''.....

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
457, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H.R. 3660.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today, the House once again considers legislation to ban 
partial-birth abortion. Similar legislation, as every Member is surely 
aware, has been considered in each of the last two Congresses. And in 
each Congress, this House not only has passed the legislation, but also 
overrode a Presidential veto.
  The partial-birth abortion act would have become law during the last 
Congress, if support in the other body had not fallen just short of the 
two-thirds majority necessary to override the Presidential veto.
  Some of us ask why we are considering this measure again. The answer 
to that question is quite simple. This House has a responsibility to do 
everything in its power, notwithstanding the President's stubborn 
support for partial-birth abortion, to put an end to this practice, 
which has no place in a civilized society.
  The House cannot remain silent while a procedure, such as partial-
birth abortion is being performed across this land. The debate over 
this procedure was sparked in 1992 when an abortionist named Dr. Martin 
Haskell presented a paper in which he described this procedure, which I 
will now describe to the House.
  Mr. Speaker, in the procedure described in the paper by Dr. Martin 
Haskell, in 1992, the abortionist in the first step of the procedure 
guided by ultrasound grabs the live baby's leg with forceps, as is 
depicted in this drawing.
  The abortionist then goes to step 2 in which the baby's leg is pulled 
out into the birth canal. Third, the abortionist delivers the living 
baby's entire body except for the head, which is deliberately kept 
lodged just within the woman's cervix. The abortionist then jams 
scissors into the baby's skull, and the scissors are opened to enlarge 
the incision. This is in the fourth step, depicted here in this 
drawing. Finally, the scissors are removed, and a suction catheter is 
inserted. The child's brains are removed by the suction catheter, 
causing the skull to collapse, and the delivery of the child is then 
completed.
  Now, I have described this procedure on the floor of this House 
previously during the consideration of legislation in past Congresses. 
Every time I describe it, I am moved with the sense of horror at what 
is actually taking place when this procedure is performed.
  I would appeal to all the Members of the House to consider the 
chilling reality of what actually takes place when a partial-birth 
abortion is performed. Put aside all the misrepresentations, put aside 
all the falsehoods that have been brought forward by the supporters of 
this procedure, and consider the reality that is demonstrated in these 
simple drawings. I would submit to the House that we cannot in good 
conscience sit idly by while such deeds are being done in this Nation 
under the protection of the law.

[[Page H1780]]

  Now, from the beginning of the debate over this legislation, the 
supporters of partial-birth abortion have relied on an array of 
misrepresentation and outright lies to cover up the truth about this 
odious practice.
  For example, the abortion lobby lied and said that the procedure was 
rarely used, estimating the number performed annually at approximately 
500. An investigation by a newspaper in New Jersey revealed, however, 
that approximately 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed per year 
in one clinic alone in the State of New Jersey.
  Ron Fitzsimmons, the head of the National Coalition of Abortion 
Providers, admitted in an interview with the American Medical News that 
he had lied through his teeth. Those are his words, ``lied through his 
teeth,'' when he ``spouted the party line'' as he went on to say to 
ABC's Nightline news program by claiming that the annual number of 
partial-birth abortions was only 500, instead of the 3,000 to 5,000 he 
now admits.
  The abortion lobby also claimed that partial-birth abortions are 
performed only in rare cases involving serious fetal deformities or to 
preserve the life or health of the mother. Once again, that falsehood 
is contradicted by the plain evidence.
  The American Medical Association has clearly stated that the partial-
birth abortion procedure is not good medicine and is not medically 
indicated in any situation. They may not support the bill for their own 
internal political reasons, but that statement of theirs that this 
procedure is never medically indicated still stands.
  Similarly, the Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, a group of 
over 400 physicians who are professors or specialists in obstetrics and 
related fields, has said, and I quote them, ``partial-birth abortion is 
never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or future 
fertility. On the contrary,'' they go on to say, ``this procedure . . . 
can pose a significant threat to both her immediate health and future 
fertility.''
  H.R. 3660, the bill that is before the House today is similar to the 
bill that passed the House and Senate during the last Congress. The 
language of the bill has been modified slightly from the previous 
version in order to alleviate concerns raised in response to various 
court decisions striking down State partial-birth abortion bans on the 
grounds that those bans also reached conventional abortion procedures 
in which the fetus is dismembered and then removed from the mother. The 
new language makes clear that, for the bill to apply, partial delivery 
into the birth canal is not sufficient, but that the partial delivery 
must be outside, and these are the words of the bill, ``outside the 
body of the mother.''

  Now, contrary to the claims of the opponents of this legislation, 
there is no constitutional barrier to banning the partial-birth 
abortion procedure. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that women 
have a constitutional right to abort unborn children. The baby that is 
killed during a partial-birth abortion is no longer unborn, however, 
but is partially born, and the Roe court did not hold that partially 
born children are without protection under the Constitution.
  There is an absolutely very clear distinction between what the court 
was dealing with in the Roe case as controversial as that may be and as 
much as some Members of this Chamber may disagree with it, there is a 
very clear distinction between that and what we are dealing with in 
this bill which addresses the procedure of partial-birth abortion.
  In fact, in Roe, the court specifically noted that a Texas statute 
prohibiting the killing of a child during childbirth had not been 
challenged. The partial-birth abortion ban is soundly premised, I would 
submit to the Members of this House, upon the view that the abortion 
created in Roe does not extend to partially born children.
  Now, let me ask every Member of this House to consider the victims of 
partial-birth abortion, the tiny human beings whose lives are snatched 
away by this cruel practice. Look at this procedure that is performed. 
Consider that this is happening to living human beings. Now, most of 
the victims of this gruesome procedure are killed during the second 
trimester finishing in the 20th week of gestation.
  Now, who are these tiny members of the human family? Are they worthy 
of the protection against destruction as they are being delivered from 
their mother's body? Are they worthy of the protection that this bill 
would provide for them? I ask all of the Members of this House to 
reflect carefully on the value of the lives of these unique, 
defenseless human beings as they consider how they will vote today.
  Consider, I ask my colleagues, the close connection between the 
partially born child and the newborn baby. Recognize the undeniable 
continuity between the developing child in the woman who may be 
subjected to partial-birth abortion and all other members of the human 
family.

                              {time}  1215

  Now, we all know that sometimes heroic medical efforts are made to 
protect the well-being or to save the lives of unborn children. We have 
seen dramatic evidence of that in recent years. There have been 
marvelous advances in medicine which have made it possible to perform 
medical procedures on babies in the womb so that their lives can be 
preserved and their health can be protected. Surgery is performed on 
children in the womb to correct problems that might otherwise threaten 
their lives.
  Let me cite one example of a real case, the case of Samuel Armas, and 
we will show you Samuel. This is Samuel Armas. He was born last year 
after having prenatal surgery to correct a case of spina bifida. This 
surgery was performed when he was at 21 weeks gestation. Now, that is 
the point when the partial-birth abortion procedures start to be used. 
They begin using that procedure at about 20 weeks. Samuel had the 
surgery, it was a success, and he is now the joy of his parents' lives.
  I want to show my colleagues another photograph. Now, this photograph 
should vividly convey a message to all the Members of this House. It 
shows how children in the womb, like Samuel Armas, can reach out to 
grasp the finger of the physician who is performing the prenatal 
surgery. We can observe the arm of the child has been extended from the 
incision made in his mother's womb. He has reached out and grabbed the 
finger of the physician.
  I saw this photograph and similar photographs for the first time 
quite recently. And when I first saw it, I could only remain silent and 
in awe for moments after I had seen this image. Let me ask my 
colleagues, as Members of this House, can we say that a baby at this 
stage of development, this baby reaching out and grasping for life, 
should be denied protection against partial-birth abortion? Can we 
remain blind to the meaning of this tiny grasping human hand? Is there 
anyone in this House whose finger has been grasped by a newborn baby 
who can turn away from this image and support a terrible practice such 
as partial-birth abortion? How can we deny the humanity of this tiny 
child reaching out of his mother's womb?
  I beg of all the Members of this House to once more recognize our 
common humanity with the victims of partial-birth abortions and pass 
the legislation that is before the House today to end this shameful, 
outrageous practice, which is an offense against humanity.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My colleagues, we should make no mistake, this bill is not about 
legislating, it is a game designed to thumb Congress' nose at the 
constitutional bedrock of Roe vs. Wade, which gives a woman the right 
to choose. And so this is a game designed to provoke a veto, which will 
surely occur.
  Now, we would all like to end unnecessary partial-birth abortions. 
Indeed, had the majority really wanted to do this, we could have 
started working together to pass legislation some 15 months ago when 
this session started. Democrats would have worked to pass such 
legislation. But, instead, we have a charade. We wait 15 months, no 
hearings, no markup in subcommittee, no markup in full committee, no 
amendments allowed to be offered on the House floor. Why? Because the 
sponsors of this legislation do not want us to offer a real proposal 
that could get signed into law and pass constitutional muster. On their 
part, this is not a good-faith effort. Instead, they want a

[[Page H1781]]

bill that they cannot pass into law or meet the requirements of the 
Constitution. They do this because they want an issue, not a law that 
will ban unnecessary late-term procedures.
  What does this mean? The majority wants to trample the constitutional 
rights of a woman to obtain certain procedures when she needs them to 
protect her health. It wants to force women, like Kim Custis, to carry 
their pregnancies to term. Ms. Custis wanted to have a baby, but she 
found out not once but twice that the fetus she was carrying had no 
brain tissue. The first time this happened, the Nebraska law that has 
now been enjoined was still in force, and there was no way for her to 
have a safe, legal abortion. The sponsors of this bill would have Ms. 
Custis carry this fetus, who had no brain.
  If anyone has any doubt about the game that is being so crudely 
choreographed here today, it will be dispelled if they look across the 
street at the Supreme Court, which is set to hear arguments on the 
constitutionality of an earlier version of the same measure. Under 
normal circumstances, we would be loathe to get out ahead of the 
Supreme Court in a case concerning virtually identical language. That 
is because ever since the Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison, 
nearly 200 years ago, we have recognized that the Supreme Court has the 
last word on the constitutionality of our laws. Not us, but them.
  But it is an election year, and the Republican leadership cannot wait 
for the Supreme Court to fulfill its constitutionally mandated role. 
The reality is this bill is unconstitutional because it contains no 
exceptions providing for the physical health of the mother, and that is 
why we should vote against it. Roe vs. Wade clearly holds that a 
woman's right to protect her life and health in the context of 
reproductive choice trumps the Government as Big Brother in its desire 
to regulate.
  Medical and legal experts who have viewed the legislation note that 
it is extremely vague and broad and, as a result, may outlaw abortion 
procedures at any stage of pregnancy. In fact, in Michigan, on July 31, 
1997, Judge Gerald Rosen struck down Michigan's partial- birth abortion 
ban, in the first case finding the definition of partial birth so vague 
that doctors lacked notice as to what abortion procedures were banned. 
Moreover, the court found that the State law unduly burdened women's 
ability to obtain an abortion.
  It is clear that this bill violates that well-established 
constitutional law long settled by Roe. Even one of the most leading 
conservative jurists in the 7th Circuit, Chief Judge Richard Posner, 
who was appointed by President Reagan, has himself said of these 
legislative end runs, ``These statutes are concerned with making a 
statement in the ongoing war for public opinion, though an incidental 
effect may be to discourage some late-term abortions, the statement is 
that fetal life is more valuable than women's health.''
  So for heaven's sake, let us not force by legislative fiat the Kim 
Custises of this world to bring to term fetuses that cannot survive. 
Let us stop trying to usurp the duties of the United States Supreme 
Court. Let us take the politicians out of the bedrooms.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing this bill 
to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, I rise to express my support for this 
lifesaving bill. It is hard to believe that it has not been signed into 
law already, but we live in very sad times.
  Every day, on television, in the papers, on this floor and, in 
particular, in the White House, I hear over and over again about how 
much everyone cares about children. Never in the history of man has 
more lip service been paid to the needs of our children. But, 
tragically, never in history have children been sacrificed so 
mercilessly in such high numbers.
  Abortion is a stain on our Nation that we must begin to wash away. A 
ban on partial-birth abortions is the first step.
  Bill Clinton even ran for the presidency by saying that he wanted to 
make abortion rarer; but after 8 years in office, he has done nothing 
to curtail the number of abortions in this country. In fact, he has 
twice vetoed the attempts of Congress to eliminate the harshest 
abortion techniques. And make no mistake about it, that is what this 
bill does.
  We need to be honest about what abortion is. We also need to be 
honest about what this specific technique is. I have heard some of my 
colleagues complain about the charts that have been shown here on the 
floor that explain the process of partial-birth abortion. Well, that is 
what happens to between 3,000 and 10,000 babies every year. The 
descriptions of this procedure are reality. Now, most Americans would 
not want this done to a dog; yet the White House and others turn their 
heads away as it is done to babies.
  The abortion industry has gone too far, and on this issue the 
conscience of this country has been pricked. A vast majority of 
Americans now believe that partial-birth abortions should be illegal. 
Mr. Speaker, the President needs to listen to the conscience of America 
and sign this ban.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey), one of the leaders in our struggle for 
sensible abortion procedures.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, we are here today considering this ban for 
the seventh time in 5 years. Seven times we have stood here and talked 
about the need to protect the health of American women, seven times we 
have asked our colleagues to stop playing politics with women's lives, 
and seven times we have shown this bill to be an attack on the 
constitutional right to reproductive choice embodied in the Roe v. Wade 
decision. But we are back, unfortunately, and, sadly, probably not for 
the last time.
  I want to ask my colleagues to think about the nature of this issue 
for a moment. What we are doing today, if we pass this ban, is 
inserting ourselves, the Government, into one of the most personal and 
painful decisions a woman will ever have to make. I know my colleagues 
do not believe in that principle. I sat here yesterday during the 
debate on organ transplants as Member after Member came to this floor 
and expressed shock and outrage that the Government would dare insert 
itself in the medical decision-making process.

                              {time}  1230

  Well, today they are asking us to go even further. Not only are they 
demanding that we stand between doctor and patient, but also that we 
place ourselves between husband and wife, mother and daughter, clergy 
and parishioner. Legally, this is unconstitutional. And morally, it is 
unconscionable.
  Mr. Speaker, Roe v. Wade expressed three basic values, values that 
the American people overwhelmingly support.
  First, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is private and personal 
and should be made by a woman and her family without undo interference 
from the Government.
  Second, a woman must never be forced to sacrifice her life or damage 
her health in order to bring a pregnancy to term.
  Third, determinations about viability, health, and risks must be made 
for each woman by her physician.
  This bill, my colleagues, rejects each of these values. It contains 
no mention of fetal viability, no protection for the health of the 
woman, and leaves no role for the physician. The Government makes all 
the decisions. And make no mistake, real families will suffer if this 
legislation becomes law.
  Yesterday, a number of us talked with the Koster family. Kim Koster 
and her husband Barry have now lost two pregnancies to anencephaly, a 
condition in which the fetal brain does not develop.
  Kim is young, just 31. She is healthy, with no family history of this 
devastating condition. Yet, she and her husband have had to terminate 
two pregnancies. And if they choose to have that baby they have been 
dreaming about their entire lives, there is a 50/50 chance that they 
will have a third anencephalic pregnancy.
  Kim and Barry want to be parents. They want the opportunity that so 
many of us have to bring a baby of their own into this world. Yet, the 
supporters of this bill would deny them access to a decision to 
terminate the

[[Page H1782]]

pregnancy that would protect Kim's well-being.
  I want my colleagues to know that I respect them and the oath we have 
to make decisions based on what we believe is right. I believe, with 
all my heart, that this bill is wrong and that we must stand against 
any abortion law that would leave families like Kim and Barry without 
options when they already have so much at stake.
  My colleagues, we believe that women matter. We believe that their 
lives are irreplaceable and worth protecting. That is why we oppose 
this ban. Let us reject this assault on our values and our health and 
stand up for the principles embedded in Roe v. Wade. Vote ``no'' on 
this bill.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
3660, the partial-birth abortion ban.
  My position on this legislation is based on my concern for the health 
and safety of both the mother and the preborn child.
  The medical value of the procedure in question is often 
misrepresented. The truth is that this procedure poses a greater risk 
to the mother's health than a full-term delivery. Studies have only 
begun to measure the physical, the psychological, and the emotional 
tolls abortions take on women.
  We must not be fooled by the claims that partial-birth abortions are 
necessary to save lives. The truth is that the members of the American 
Medical Association have yet to find a single case where this procedure 
is medically necessary. In the words of former U.S. Surgeon General C. 
Everett Koop, ``In no way can I twist my mind to see that the partial 
birth, and then destruction, of the unborn child before the head is 
born is a medical necessity for the mother.''
  According to the abortion industry itself, the vast majority of 
partial-birth abortions are performed on completely healthy mothers and 
healthy babies. In fact, many of the preborn children aborted using 
this procedure would have a really realistic chance of survival outside 
of the womb.
  Thousands of infants are dying a painful, gruesome death every year. 
We have a grave responsibility to protect them from this inhumane 
treatment. I urge my colleagues to join me in eliminating this method 
of execution.
  The President, by his consistent vetoes, has demonstrated that he is 
out of step with the vast majority of Americans who have stated their 
opposition to this procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, we must demonstrate our commitment to the wishes of the 
American people by passing this legislation at this time in accordance 
with the wishes of the American people. I urge the President to sign 
this particular ban.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler) who has worked long and hard on this 
measure. He is a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill, which would ban legal abortion 
procedures, is deceptive, extreme, and unconstitutional.
  The bill has come before us time and time again with the obvious 
purpose that has been obscured behind the inaccurate and inflammatory 
picture. Do not be fooled. This is nothing less than an attempt to 
outlaw all abortion. The bill is so vague that no one is quite sure 
exactly what we are banning. The courts have not been able to determine 
it. Similar State versions of the bill are currently enjoined in 18 
States.
  Doctors have testified repeatedly and courts across the land have 
found that similarly worded bans can apply to virtually all procedures 
used in the second-trimester of pregnancy and each to some first-
trimester abortions.
  Why do not legislators try to simply ban all abortions, then? Because 
the American people would not stand for it and the Supreme Court would 
not stand for it.
  The proponents of this bill oppose all abortion. They oppose first-
trimester abortion. They oppose pre-viability abortion. They oppose Roe 
v. Wade. They oppose health exceptions. They oppose simple-life 
exceptions. Some even oppose contraceptives. Just ask them. They 
represent extreme forces in this country and most Americans reject 
their rhetoric and their views.
  So what is it we have before us, then? A dead bill, a bill that is 
not going anywhere, a bill that has been defeated more times than the 
Washington generals.
  Every year we point out its shortcomings and drafting errors and they 
refuse to fix it. And this bill will die again. Why should it die? 
Because it is unconstitutional on its face, because it does not provide 
for health exception, because it does not provide for an adequate life 
exception, because it is vague, because it limits the ability of 
doctors to offer medical care, because it allows abusive boyfriends to 
beat their pregnant girlfriends, abandon them, and sue them if they 
have an abortion.
  Why should this bill be rejected? Because it substitutes for a 
woman's choice a Government mandate.
  This bill is about the right to choose. Should the woman choose, or 
should the politicians choose for her? During the HMO debate, we all 
agreed that doctors and patients should make medical decisions, not 
bureaucrats. The same holds true here. Doctors and patients should 
decide what is the safest, most medically appropriate procedure for an 
abortion, not the U.S. Congress.
  Most of us are not doctors in this House and we should not place 
ourselves in the operating room between the women and their doctors. I 
hope the House rejects this bill.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  (Mr. TERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3660.
  It is well documented that partial-birth abortions are widely 
performed on healthy mothers and healthy babies who might be able to 
live outside of the womb. In this horrific procedure, a baby is 
partially delivered feet first and stabbed in the back of head by an 
abortion doctor, who then vacuums out the baby's brains. The baby is 
killed only three inches away from taking its first breath and being 
indisputably recognized under the law as a human being with the right 
to live.
  Mr. Speaker, whether it is my first time or this body's seventh time, 
I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and support H.R. 3660.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. Every election cycle, the 
Republicans want the House to participate in their ritualistic attack 
on women and the very difficult choices that they have to make on the 
issue of choice. The reality of this situation is that this bill would 
leave the health of women completely unprotected.
  In the past 25 years, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a 
woman's health and life must be protected throughout pregnancy. The 
court has mandated health and life exceptions to restrictions.
  H.R. 3660 flies in the face of the law, the difficult medical 
decisions that families have to make, and the American people by 
containing no exception for a woman's health at any point in the 
pregnancy.
  Knowing how extreme their position is on this issue, the Republican 
leadership allowed no markups in the Committee on the Judiciary, no 
offer of amendments in the Committee on Rules, and even denied the 
Hoyer-Greenwood substitute, which would provide for a Federal ban on 
all post-viability abortions except those needed to preserve the 
woman's life or to avert serious adverse health consequences.
  The Republican leadership says that the Hoyer-Greenwood substitute is 
too broad. Since when is the preservation of a woman's life too broad? 
And why would the Federal Government want to impose its will on a 
family's decision in this very, very difficult situation?
  The reality is that H.R. 3660 is too broad. The bill is not about 
protecting the woman's health. It is about protecting the will of the 
right wing base of the Republican party.
  I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this politicizing of this 
issue in this political year. I would ask them to vote ``no'' on the 
rule of H.R. 3660 and please oppose this legislation that seeks to 
endanger a woman's life.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).

[[Page H1783]]

  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Canady) 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard from a number of my colleagues on the 
House floor about how difficult this issue is. It is a difficult issue 
for all involved with very dire consequences.
  I join with Democrats, Republicans, Independents, I join with 
liberals or conservatives that support this legislation to ban partial-
birth abortions. I do not think this is a question of Roe v. Wade. It 
is a question of life v. death for scores of children.
  Now, I am not a physician. I readily admit that. I am not a 
physician. And I am not going to describe on the House floor how 
horrific or brutal this act is. But what do physicians say when we ask 
the people that are experts on this issue what they think of this 
partial-birth abortion procedure?
  In 1995, the American Medical Association's Legislative Counsel, a 
panel consisting of 12 doctors, voted unanimously, voted unanimously, 
to ban partial-birth abortions.
  A group of 300 physicians, joined by the former Surgeon General C. 
Everett Koop, said, ``This procedure is never medically necessary to 
protect a mother's life or her future fertility. On the contrary, this 
procedure can pose a significant threat to both.''
  Today, the House of Representatives and the Nation have the 
opportunity to put value on the sanctity of human life; and I encourage 
support for this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) a member of the committee.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, in 1973, the Supreme Court held that women 
have a constitutional right to choose an abortion. That decision, Roe 
v. Wade, was carefully written to hold the rights of women in America 
paramount in reproductive decisions.
  This decision and those that followed have held that women have a 
constitutional right to choose an abortion. But, after fetal 
viabilities, States could ban abortions as long as they allowed 
exceptions for cases in which a woman's life or health is endangered.

                              {time}  1245

  In essence, Roe v. Wade says that women matter, that women have the 
right to decide whether and when to have children, and that women shall 
not be forced to give their lives or sacrifice their health to carry a 
child. It also says that these choices are private, that they are to be 
made by a woman in consultation with her physician, her family, and 
whomever else she chooses to consult for counsel. Government has no 
place in this most private decision.
  The legislation before us today is in direct contravention of the 
court's ruling. It does not ban post-viability abortions as its 
sponsors have claimed. It bans abortion procedures regardless of how 
far along in a woman's pregnancy the decision occurs. This legislation 
as drafted does not provide an exception to preserve the health of a 
mother as required by law.
  Let there be no doubt about it, this legislation is nothing but a 
political issue. This legislation does nothing to end post-viability 
abortions as our alternative would. And it does nothing to prevent 
unwanted pregnancies and to make abortion rarer in the United States. 
Voters in Colorado, Washington, and Maine have recognized this and 
defeated similar bans on the ballot. And of the 30 States that have 
enacted legislation similar to the one before us today, 21 have been 
challenged in court and 19 of those challenges have been either 
partially or fully enjoined while their constitutionality is 
considered.
  While I am not willing to concede that this legislation describes a 
medical procedure that any doctor in this land would recognize, it is 
important to note that the graphic images being shown and described do 
not reflect the real life stories of families who have needed this 
procedure either to save the life or to preserve the health of the 
mother. As I hear stories from these women who courageously are willing 
to speak about this most personal decision, when they are willing to 
talk about the abortion and the medical care they received during 
crisis pregnancies, I am struck by a common remark these women have 
made, that these scenarios being described by proponents of the bill 
are not about them and their families, that they do not represent their 
cases. The women I have spoken to wanted nothing more than to have a 
child and were devastated to learn that their babies could not survive 
outside the womb. They made difficult decisions with their doctors and 
families to terminate pregnancies, to preserve their own health and in 
many cases their ability to try to have a child again.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I just have to take issue with 
the comments that have been preceding this debate. This is not a 
political issue. This is a human issue. Let me just say this to all of 
my colleagues who are about to vote on this issue. On the motion to 
recommit, the health exception is a loophole wide enough to drive a 
Mack truck through it. The health exception would render this ban 
virtually meaningless.
  Let us just go over what this procedure does. The abortionist 
forcibly turns the child into the breech, feet first in that position, 
then the abortionist pulls the living child out of the mother by the 
leg until only the head is left inside, stabs the child at the base of 
the skull and sucks out the brain with a vacuum, pulling the now dead 
child out of the mother.
  Mr. Speaker, C. Everett Koop, hundreds of OB-GYNs have told us that 
this is not medically necessary. In the words of the former Surgeon 
General himself, from the evidence that has been presented in standard 
OB-GYN textbooks as well as in the annals of research in OB-GYN, there 
is no medical necessity for this abortion procedure.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, the majority whip got up just a few minutes 
ago on this floor and said, ``Abortion is a stain on this country. A 
ban on partial-birth abortion is just the first step.''
  Make no mistake about it, my friends. This bill is intended, as he 
said, as just the first step to banning all abortions. That is why the 
leadership has chosen this issue, this wedge issue, in this election 
year with complete disregard to whether or not the bill is 
constitutional or whether or not the bill can be upheld. Nineteen State 
and Federal courts have already ruled that the definitions in bills 
like this one are overly broad and as a result would subject physicians 
to prosecution if they perform any abortion procedures. We would not be 
surprised if, even if by some slight chance the bill were upheld, it 
would effectively end most all abortions in this country. Again, make 
no mistake about it, that is the true intent of the supporters of this 
bill. This Congress and the American public have got to recognize and 
understand that.
  Nobody in this Congress wants to see abortions. This legislation 
denigrates the experiences of women like Eileen Sullivan who was 
anxious to start her family and was eagerly awaiting the arrival of her 
baby when she received the horrifying news that her baby would not 
live. Her doctor decided that this procedure was the only one that 
could be used to preserve her life and her health and help her have 
babies in the future.
  To pass this bill today is to deny women like her a safe and 
compassionate procedure when deep tragedy strikes the family. To pass 
this legislation is to allow the Federal Government to grievously 
interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and slither its way into 
the most personal decision a family can make. I urge my colleagues to 
think rationally and compassionately on an issue that is anything but 
rational and compassionate before they vote today. To assume that it is 
easy for any woman to choose this or any other procedure is offensive 
to all women who face such a heartbreaking situation. And it is indeed 
offensive to all women to think that they would have this procedure 
just for fun.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask those considering voting yes on this bill to 
think of the women in your life. What would you do if the doctor asked 
you to

[[Page H1784]]

choose between your wife or your daughter and her pregnancy?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the children who 
are killed as they leave their mother's womb. There is no legitimate 
debate about the nature of this procedure. It has been described and 
the bottom line remains, babies begin to leave the womb with life, they 
finish leaving the womb without it because of this procedure. Opponents 
of the bill decry the way this procedure is described.
  Their real problem is that the truth hurts, and in this case it 
horrifies; and they do not want the American people to know the 
horrible reality of this so-called medical procedure that even the AMA 
has said is ``not good medicine'' and ``not medically indicated'' in 
any situation. Opponents also label those of us who are for the bill as 
right-wing extremists. But is the AMA a group of right-wing extremists? 
Is Everett Koop a right-wing extremist? Are the great majority of the 
American people who strongly support this ban all right-wing 
extremists? The debate makes clear that opponents of this bill are the 
fringe in this debate and the extremists in this debate, and the 
American people know that.
  Mr. Speaker, if this body is to have any credibility at all on 
addressing the issue of violence in our society, we must outlaw this 
government-sanctioned violence against the most vulnerable and innocent 
among us.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we have always heard that there is no rest 
for the weary. Well, the women in America are weary. They are just 
plain tired of the constant stream of attacks launched by the 
Republican leadership against their right, a woman's right to make 
decisions about their health and their lives. Today marks the seventh 
time the House will consider this dreadful issue.
  Today's assault on women is dangerous. It puts women's health at risk 
and attacks the core principles of Roe v. Wade. Roe provides American 
women a constitutional right to make their own health choices and for 
women to terminate pregnancy up to fetal viability. Roe ensures a life 
and health exception. But this bill does not. It puts women's lives and 
health at risk. Roe clearly states that our government cannot force a 
woman to sacrifice her life or health to protect a pregnancy. Yet my 
Republican colleagues outrageously want the Government to proceed to 
prevent doctors from providing the best possible medical care to women.
  Let us be clear. Women do not choose late-term abortions as a casual 
form of contraception. Rather, late-term abortions are a last choice 
for a woman, when a woman's life or health or the baby's life is 
terminal or in jeopardy. Further, late-term abortions are the most 
difficult time and the most difficult decision for a woman and her 
family to make.
  Knowing this, it would appear that the Republicans want to set a 
precedent before the Supreme Court makes their decision on April 25th 
on the Nebraska law banning abortions. This law is very similar to this 
bill. Congress must not legislate on this matter. Congress must uphold 
the principles of Roe v. Wade and vote against this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the authors of this bill claim they want to 
end abortion of a healthy, viable fetus, one that is developed enough 
to survive on its own. We could have done so. What is truly 
disappointing and what should anger American women and their families 
is that we could have passed a bill today that protects the lives of 
children and protects the health of women. A bipartisan group of 
Members put a proposal together. The Republican leadership said no. The 
Hoyer-Greenwood alternative accurately reflects the view of most 
Americans. It said it would ban abortions post-viability, that is, 
after the fetus has developed enough to survive on its own; but it 
makes two important exceptions, that is, if a mother is going to 
potentially die or if a mother's ability to have future children is 
jeopardized. The alternative preserves the doctor's right to determine 
what is the safest and the most appropriate method of treatment in a 
woman's given case.
  By not allowing the opportunity for compromise, the opportunity to 
pass a bill that the President would sign, that would become law, the 
leadership has shown that they are more interested in playing politics 
than in protecting children as they claim to do.
  In 1973, Roe v. Wade confirmed one of the most basic rights that we 
value as Americans, privacy. The case clearly established that women 
have a constitutional right to choose, to make medical decisions, and 
that the only point at which a State may enter this equation is after 
viability. When I listen to our opponents, they would have my 
colleagues believe that there are women out there who would cavalierly 
choose an abortion at the very end of her pregnancy, claims that women 
who have a headache or who want to avoid weight gain would actually 
choose an abortion at the seventh, the eighth, or the ninth month. To 
make these claims is to disregard our values as women, our values as 
child bearers.

                              {time}  1300

  How dare you demonize, how dare you trivialize what women in this 
country do in giving birth to children. We do bear children, and we are 
the caregivers of children in this country, and it is offensive, and it 
is contrary to what lies in our hearts and in our minds as women in 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would make women's health irrelevant. Though 
courts have ruled time and again that women's health must be first and 
foremost, that she is the patient. American women and their families, 
what they want is a choice to do what is best for them in some of the 
most tragic situations that they will, in fact, ever face. As a woman 
who has faced life and death in a health decision, as a survivor of 
ovarian cancer, I am offended by the accusation that by defending women 
who do this, we somehow diminish pregnancy. That is why I stand to 
oppose this bill today.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
this legislation to ban the partial-birth abortion procedure. I 
encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do so and 
to oppose the motion to recommit.
  I first learned of this procedure in 1993 when I was still practicing 
medicine. After a long day of seeing patients in my office, I opened 
the American medical news and saw this procedure first described, and I 
was shocked. I was shocked by not only its flagrant violation of the 
sanctity of human life, but its brutality. I have worked in neonate to 
intensive care units and I have seen firsthand with my eyes how 
premature babies respond to pain. When it is necessary to draw blood 
and needles are placed in their arms, I have seen them draw back, 
writhe in pain and cry out. Dragging an unborn baby, feet first, 
partially out of the womb is a brutal violation of the privacy of that 
child. But to then stab that baby in the back of the skull is, in my 
medical opinion, not only barbaric, it is excruciatingly painful for 
these poor, unfortunate souls.
  Apologists for this procedure claim that it is necessary in 
situations to protect the health of the mother or in birth defects. But 
in the original articles describing this procedure, the developers, 
McMahon and Haskell admitted that the vast majority of the mothers are 
healthy and the babies are free of birth defects. Of the small number 
that did have birth defects, the majority of them were cleft lip and 
cleft palate, clearly a nonlethal, surgically correctable defect that 
has no justification for subjecting these babies to a painful and 
violent execution.
  I say to my colleagues, I believe that nations of people are judged 
not by their economic or military strength, but how they care for the 
weakest in their culture. Nobody is weaker than an unborn child.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).

[[Page H1785]]

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, first, in response to my colleagues' 
assertions, I must say that a health exemption for women is not a 
loophole, it is a constitutional right, and it is the right thing to do 
for America's women. I would argue if a health exemption is such a 
terrible thing to do, why is Governor Bush in my home State of Texas 
over the last 5 years while he has been in office not made, to my 
knowledge, any serious effort to close that so-called loophole in our 
State.
  Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to late-term abortions, but when 
the health of the mother is at risk, that is a choice that should be 
made by a woman and her doctor, not by politicians in Washington, D.C.
  Coreen Costello was a pro-life Republican and mother of three when 
her pregnancy turned tragically fatal for her child. Her doctors 
preserved her fertility with the procedure being outlawed in this bill. 
She then became pregnant again and gave birth to her fourth child.
  Listen to this loving mother's words, and I quote: ``Because of this 
procedure, I now have something my heart ached for, a new baby, a boy 
named Tucker. He is our family's joy, and I thank God for him.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is an insult to the women of America to suggest that 
they want to kill healthy, viable babies just seconds before normal 
childbirth, and shame on those who would use a deceptive, politically 
motivated drawing to suggest that American women are monsters that 
would kill their viable, healthy babies just as they were being born 
and to do so for frivolous reasons.
  The truth is, the truth is they are rare, but tragic cases, cases 
like Coreen Costello, where their babies had no chance to live, and 
doctors used abortions to protect the mother's health and her ability 
to have a child in the future.
  This bill would do great harm to decent, loving women such as Mrs. 
Costello.
  By voting no on this bill, we are saying this to American women: when 
your health is at risk, you and your doctor should make that choice, 
not politicians in Washington, D.C.
  No Member of this House has the right to substitute his or her 
judgment for that of a doctor and mother faced with such a rare but 
tragic situation where a pregnancy is failing and the goal is to save a 
mother's fertility or health. No Member has that right.
  Not one!
  It is unfair to the women of America to say, ``When your health is at 
risk, Congress should decide which medical procedure should be used.'' 
How many in this Chamber are qualified to make that medical decision 
for someone else's wife or daughter?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, some day soon, and I believe 
this is a matter of when and not if, future generations of Americans 
will look back with horror, incredulity, and astonishment that some of 
the best and brightest of this present age vehemently defended the 
slaughter of over 40 million babies by abortion.
  They will wonder how a seemingly sane, enlightened, and compassionate 
society led by its President, Congress, the media, academia and the 
courts could have so aggressively embraced violence against children 
and the abandonment of their mothers.
  With a mix of sadness and disbelief, future generations of Americans 
will absolutely marvel at our blindness and our insensitivity to the 
inherent cruelty of stabbing, dismembering, and poisoning little 
children under the euphemism of choice.
  What were they thinking, they will ask. How could they have construed 
the right to privacy to include injections of poisons or the hacking to 
death by knife or razor blade-tipped curette, so as to procure the 
death of a child. How could so many have remained unmoved or silent in 
the midst of a holocaust that claimed the lives of one out of every 
three babies in this country, 40 million boys and girls, a number 
roughly equal to five times the entire population of my home State of 
New Jersey.
  Future generations of Americans, and judging by the polls, super 
majorities of Americans today are finally, at long last, outraged that 
thousands of children each year are being butchered by partial-birth 
abortion. They are beginning to get it. Most people I talk to are 
outraged that babies who are partially born and fully kicking are 
legally jabbed in the back of the head with scissors for the purpose of 
making a hole in their fragile skulls so their brains can be sucked 
out. Anyone who has ever picked up and held a newborn baby knows how 
wobbly and fragile that child's head is. You gently cradle the child's 
neck in your hands to protect the baby from harm. The abortionist, on 
the other hand, has no such motive. When he grabs the baby's head, it 
is to stab it and to destroy the child.
  Mr. Speaker, partial-birth abortion is a monstrous act of cruelty. 
Partial-birth abortion is a gross violation of human rights, a 
barbarous form of torture directed at a defenseless baby girl or boy.
  The pending bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) is a 
desperately needed human rights initiative designed to offer at least a 
small measure of protection to some babies in a class of human beings 
who have, since 1973, been legally disenfranchised because of their 
age, immaturity, or condition of dependency.
  Many of us would surely like to save and protect more babies from the 
violence of abortion; I wish to God we could save more. But I believe 
we have a moral duty that is not so easily satisfied to save at least 
some, as many as we can, at every opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a very, very modest step in that direction 
to save at least some.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, as a woman, a mother and grandmother of 
girls, I am deeply and personally offended by this legislation. It 
implies that American women just have to be stopped from frivolously 
deciding to terminate a pregnancy just days or weeks before delivery. 
It has been stated on this floor that these pregnant women have not 
explored all of the medical and surgical options to save their babies 
or protect their own lives, and it takes politicians to stop them.
  Mr. Speaker, the truth is, the women who have late abortions are 
forced to end wanted pregnancies, either because the baby will surely 
die, like Kim and Barry Koster's baby that had no brain, or the women 
will seriously jeopardize their own life and health. Women are 
portrayed as irresponsible baby killers when in fact it is the sponsors 
of this bill who show utter disregard for the life and health of women.
  President Clinton, in vetoing one of the former versions of this bill 
said quote, for these women, this was not about choice, not about 
deciding against having a child, these babies were certain to perish 
during or shortly after birth, and the only question was how much grave 
damage was going to be done to the women.
  This bill implies that the current law allows women to have abortions 
up to the last minute before delivery, but that is not true. Despite 
all of the rhetoric to the contrary, Roe v. Wade strictly limits 
abortions after viability, and the Hoyer-Greenwood alternative would 
have made that even clearer.
  This is not about one procedure or even late-term abortions. This 
bill is so broad and so vague that it would ban most abortion 
procedures including some first, and all second and third trimester 
abortions, and that is the goal. To reverse Roe v. Wade and take away 
from women what the Supreme Court calls ``The most intimate and 
personal choice a person may make in a lifetime, choice essential to 
personal dignity and autonomy and central to the liberty protected by 
the 14th amendment.''
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at what I just heard, and I want 
to tell my colleagues that medically, what we just heard is an 
incorrect, inaccurate statement.
  This procedure is never used in first trimesters, it will have no 
effect on first trimester abortions whatsoever. That was the 
implication. The Kansas data for the first 3 months of this year

[[Page H1786]]

show that what the gentlewoman from Illinois just stated is not true. 
The Kansas data shows that, in fact, these were viable infants with no 
significant medical complication.
  So I do not deny that I want every abortion in this country to end, 
but that is not why I am supporting this. This procedure harms women, 
and there are several other procedures under which the same end result 
could be accomplished.
  So let us keep clear what the facts are here. Babies without brains 
can be delivered other ways than this way at a whole lot less risk to 
the mother. Do not lose sight of that fact. There is no question I am 
not much of a politician, but I am a physician, and I have delivered 
3,500 babies and I have cared for women with complications from this 
procedure.
  Let us stay on what the issue is. The issue is, women who have 
children that are nonviable can, in fact, have a termination under 
another method. Number two, under the laws of Kansas, as now is 
happening, viable fetuses and babies are being terminated with impunity 
when there is no cause to do so.
  The other thing to think about, we are not talking about mature women 
making these decisions, because most of these are teenagers who end up 
showing up and telling their parents about a pregnancy when they are 
24, 25 weeks along. I heard an earlier speaker say about the 7th month. 
Well, let me tell my colleagues, by the 6th month, babies are viable. 
We now say babies at 22 weeks. So let us keep the facts about the 
procedure in line.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
bill, which is an attack on women's health and the constitutional 
rights of women.
  Let us put this vote in perspective. We have already voted on this 7 
times. Since 1994 when the Republican majority took control of 
Congress, there have been 141 votes on choice; on this floor, 112, 79 
percent, resulted in an antichoice loss for women.

                              {time}  1315

  Each of these votes that are chipping away, chipping away at a 
woman's right to choose are detailed on my Choice Report which is 
located on my web site.
  This bill does not take into account women's health exceptions. It 
has no viability threshold, and does not allow a doctor to recommend 
the best medical procedure for a patient.
  The women who follow their doctor's advice and undergo these rare 
procedures are women who have had to come to terms with pregnancies 
that have tragically gone wrong. The new majority likes to talk about 
getting government off their backs, yet here they want to replace a 
doctor's expertise with a governmental judgment in the most personal of 
decisions.
  Doctors and their patients should make medical decisions. Congress 
has no place politicizing family decisions and family tragedies.
  As the mother of two children, I would have wanted the choice in the 
event I learned late in my pregnancy that my fetus was so deformed that 
it was incompatible with life and that my reproductive health was at 
risk, and also at risk, my ability to have future children. I would 
have wanted that choice, and I want that choice for every woman in this 
country.
  Vote no on this bill.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a strong advocate for this bill and a 
strong advocate for the human rights of all Americans, both born and 
unborn. This Nation must raise the value of life if we are to survive 
as a Nation and prosper as a people.
  This procedure is so horrible, so inhumane, that there should never 
be a debate over whether or not to protect the lives of these helpless 
babies. Can Members imagine that it is legal to partially deliver a 
fully formed child, a child that can survive outside the mother's womb, 
lying in the doctor's hand, only to kill it by one of the most brutal 
methods known to man?
  But today I want to stress that in passing the partial-birth abortion 
ban, we must be wary of the so-called serious health exceptions. These 
health exceptions become a loophole through which even more partial-
birth abortions are performed.
  The most dangerous of these exceptions is the mental health exception 
that can even allow for partial-birth abortions in the third trimester, 
a time in which even the most avid abortion rights activists agree that 
a fetus, the baby, can live on its own.
  The mental health exception essentially nullifies the ban on partial-
birth abortions, as by its very nature the criteria can be so vague.
  Mental health excuses in today's society are so notoriously 
footloose. How many of us have taken a day off of work or school for 
mental health reasons, usually because it is a good day at the beach or 
we feel like sleeping in? Unfortunately, in passing a mental health 
exception, precious life itself is held to the same laissez-faire 
standards.
  I am embarrassed to say that because of the mental health exceptions, 
my home State of Kansas is on its way to becoming the partial-birth 
abortion capital of the Nation. In 1998, the Kansas legislature passed 
a partial-birth abortion ban much like the one we are discussing today. 
However, there was an exception in the case of mental health concerns.
  Since passage of the law, partial-birth abortions have not ceased nor 
have they been decreased. Instead, partial-birth abortions in the State 
of Kansas have risen by more than 300 percent, all of them because of 
the mental health exception.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the exceptions and for the final 
passage.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, 
and I urge my colleagues to stay out of the doctor's office and leave 
the medical decisions to the medical profession.
  This is a bad bill because it is anti-family. This bill ignores the 
health of the mother, and instead it jeopardizes a woman's chance to 
have a healthy baby in the future.
  Let me be clear, a third trimester abortion is an extremely rare 
procedure. In the State of Florida, we had 25 of these procedures 
performed last year. Let me give an example of why.
  A 31-year-old pregnant woman discovered at 31 weeks of pregnancy that 
her fetus' brain had grown outside of his head. The baby would not live 
outside of the womb, and the enlarged head made a regular delivery a 
dangerous procedure for the woman. This is a woman who wanted a child 
and a woman who wanted a family.
  I ask my colleagues to allow these women to protect their bodies so 
they can have healthy babies in the future. Let us leave the medical 
decisions to the medical professionals. This is a bad bill, and I urge 
Members to vote against it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by reacting to something said earlier. I 
come from a State, Wisconsin, which is one of those States that 
overwhelmingly passed a ban on partial-birth abortions, a law very 
similar to the one we are taking up today, although perhaps a bit 
tougher. It has been upheld twice, so let us be clear on the 
constitutional arguments. It is not as the opponents portray.
  It is interesting, some of the tenor of the debate today. Some people 
are upset that we are taking this bill up because it is inconvenient. 
It is perhaps annoying to them. I have heard reference that we should 
not be taking this up because we voted on it seven times before or 
eight times before. Of course we should be here. We must be here, and 
we must be here each and every year until this practice is gone.
  As long as two-thirds of Americans, a supermajority, want this 
horrible practice to end but the administration and the abortion 
industry will not listen, we should be here. As long as so many States 
have outlawed this but the administration and the abortion industry 
will not listen, we should be here. As long as thousands of these 
horrible procedures are performed each and every

[[Page H1787]]

year, we should be here. Absolutely, we should be here.
  If we fail to take up this cause today, then the other side might 
just get comfortable. Maybe they will believe that we have lost our 
resolve, that this matter does not matter to us anymore. Sure we face a 
tough road ahead. The abortion industry is strong and the White House 
is not on our side. But if we do not stand up, who will?
  I urge all of my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit and to 
vote for this very important bill this year, next year, every year 
until this procedure is gone.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, it is not inconvenient to take this bill 
up. I would be happy to take this bill up every day of the week for the 
rest of the year. What is inconvenient is the procedure with which we 
are taking this bill up. The procedure finds the democratic process, 
which is the essence of this House and this Nation, and it finds the 
Constitution to be inconvenient. That is what is inconvenient about 
this.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from Kansas, just wanted to 
have a debate about the mental health exemption. The way that the 
Republican majority has drafted the rule and drafted the bill, that is 
a moot point. There is no debate about mental health because the 
majority does not want to debate a health exemption.
  We in Texas think there ought to be a health exemption, Democrats and 
Republicans, and 40 States think there ought to be some form of a 
health exemption. But the Republican Congress, which on some days wants 
to devolve power from the States and other days wants to take it back, 
whatever is convenient, does not want to allow the debate. That is what 
is so dismaying about all of this.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, said, we have done it all 
these years. The problem is it has happened for two cycles, two 
Congresses, and it has been vetoed. Why not open up the process? I do 
not think my Republican colleagues are necessary anti-democratic, 
little ``d'' democratic. Perhaps they are if it is an issue that is 
inconvenient to them.
  That is the problem with the process in this bill. I find that quite 
dismaying.
  The other problem is the unintended consequence of this bill. It has 
to do with the health of women. This bill supplants the right of women 
to choose with their doctor what their health procedure will be, and it 
only affects one instance.
  The gentleman from Kansas and the gentleman from Oklahoma, who is a 
doctor, who I gather only wants us to take one doctor's opinion, even 
though I think everybody in this House would want to have multiple 
opinions if given the opportunity, is telling us that there is a 
rampant case of late term abortions.
  A majority of us agree, and we asked you to bring a bill to allow an 
amendment to come to the floor. But the gentleman, the gentleman from 
Florida, who is smiling at this point, apparently did not want to allow 
the Hoyer-Greenwood bill to come to the floor. I am not sure why. Maybe 
it was too democratic of a process. Maybe it might have gotten a 
majority of votes.
  Let us debate it. Let us debate what health really is. We have had 
that debate with the Patients' Bill of Rights, which of course now is 
stalled in a conference committee. But this House is not allowed to 
have that debate. Why is that? Because of politics. This is all about 
politics.
  We are charged with the duties of writing the laws of this Nation. We 
can have very serious disagreements about it, but each Member, not a 
handful of Members but each Member, should have the right to do it.
  What the Republicans have done today is dismaying and it is 
inconvenient to the rule of order in this House and to the 
Constitution. That is what is the problem today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3660, the ``Partial Birth 
Abortion Ban Act of 2000'', a measure that is probably 
unconstitutional, certainly bad policy, and will likely do little to 
end late term abortions.
  First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents the 
triumph of raw, partisan politics over substance and the regular order 
of this House. If the leadership was serious about limiting late term 
abortions, not just this one procedure, they would have allowed for 
amendments to be offered including H.R. 2149, the Hoyer-Greenwood-
Taucher-Johnson ``Late Term Restriction Act,'' of which I am a 
cosponsor. Instead, the Republican leadership brought this twice-failed 
bill to the floor without consideration by the Judiciary Committee--no 
amendment, no report, just a meaningless political vote. The 
Republicans are putting politics over policy.
  The unintended consequence of H.R. 3660, if it were to become law, is 
that it would supplant a doctor's judgment as to the best medical 
procedure to protect a woman's health or save her life with the 
judgment of Congress. We in Congress are not medical professionals with 
the expertise to make these difficult decisions. Moreover, I am also 
dismayed that the entire debate on this issue appears to have been 
designed to stiffle open discussion and prevent consideration of 
alternative legislation.
  I am deeply troubled by post-viability abortions that are elective 
and not for health or life of the mother. Accordingly, I am 
cosponsoring a compromise that is consistent with the Supreme Court's 
rulings on the difficult issue of abortion. The gentleman from 
Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Greenwood, have introduced a bipartisan bill, H.R. 2149, that would ban 
all post-viability abortions, not just one procedure, except those 
needed to preserve the woman's life or to avert ``serious adverse 
health consequences.'' Americans want medical decisions to be made by 
doctors. This legislation would require the doctor to determine--under 
the threat of litigation and civil penalties--whether continuing a 
pregnancy posed a serious threat to the woman's health. H.R. 2149 
provides a clear, humane, and necessary exemption when there is a 
serious threat to a woman's life or health.
  This compromise bill is consistent with the Supreme Court's Roe v. 
Wade decision and its progeny. It is consistent with state law in 40 
states, including my state of Texas, as well as the District of 
Columbia. In Texas, as in other states, late-term abortions are banned 
except when the woman's life or health is threatened. I believe our 
legislation is consistent with the views of the American people. And I 
believe it is the right of and humane thing to do.
  Unfortunately, the majority has gone to great lengths to block any 
debate and vote on this compromise. Instead, they want to force a vote 
only on the extreme measure before us. The timing of this vote is 
questionable in light of the fact that the Supreme Court is expected to 
rule before the end of this legislative session on the 
constitutionality of a similar measure originating from Nebraska. 
Apparently, my Republican friends are more interested in scoring 
political points than addressing a genuine concern about late-term 
abortions.
  We will hear a lot of debate about how often this procedure is 
performed; but this issue isn't about numbers. It is about each 
individual woman who faces the awful choice when she is told that her 
life, health, or ability to bear children is endangered by her 
pregnancy. The decision about what medical treatment and procedures are 
best for that woman should be made by her and her doctor, not the 
Congress of the United States.
  Four years ago, proponents of this measure opposed providing a health 
exemption for the life of the mother. Just as then, they today argue 
that a health exemption for the mother, which forty out of fifty states 
provide, is too wide a loophole. Moreover, they refuse to debate the 
issue or even propose a limitation of the definition of ``health of the 
mother.'' Rather, they are telling American women that their health 
does not matter because it conflicts with the Republican Party's 
political goals. How shameful is that?
  We can limit the number of abortions while protecting those few women 
who face both the loss of a child and the ability to bear other 
children; just as forty states have already done. We can have a 
compromise that would ban late-term abortions, but show understanding 
and compassion for women who face these most wrenching decisions. 
However, the Republicans have blocked us from considering it and today 
turn their backs on these few women purely for political reasons. That 
is wrong.
  Ultimately, I must vote against H.R. 3660 because it is fundamentally 
flawed and would put at risk the life, health, and fertility of women 
facing one of the most difficult, anguished, and personal decisions 
imaginable.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  To respond briefly to the gentleman's point about the Hoyer-Greenwood 
bill, let it be understood that the Hoyer-Greenwood proposal is not 
even germane to the bill under consideration. That was the ruling of 
the Chair. That was straight from the Parliamentarians in the last 
Congress.

[[Page H1788]]

  Let it also be understood that the Hoyer-Greenwood proposal, by its 
own language, would not prohibit any abortion if, in the judgment of 
the attending physician, the abortion is necessary to avert serious 
health consequences to the woman.
  The key language there is ``in the judgment of the attending 
physician.'' That gives the abortionists unfettered discretion to 
decide whether the procedure would be performed or not.
  The proposal that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), my good friend, have come 
forward with is a proposal that is meaningless. I do not question their 
motives, but I will have to say, the result of their proposal is to ban 
not a single abortion at any point in pregnancy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. 
Chenoweth-Hage).
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3660. I have heard some 
startling debate on this floor delivered by women who believe that the 
government, the Congress, has absolutely no business in their personal 
lives. They believe that the government has no business in their 
doctor's office.
  Well, let us talk about where the rubber really meets the road. That 
is, our first responsibility as lawmakers is to protect life, whether 
it is to build a strong military defense system to keep us protected 
from foreign invasion, or whether it is to build a system of laws that 
keeps that helpless baby from being invaded as it is being born.
  I rise in strong support of this bill because I remember that in the 
Declaration of Independence it clearly states that, we hold these 
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and they 
have been endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights: the 
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  I take that seriously, Mr. Speaker. Yes, our responsibility is to 
protect life.
  I have also heard the debate that there are medical necessities for 
this procedure. I have to quote former Surgeon General Dr. Everett Koop 
when he said that ``In no way can I twist in my mind to see that the 
late term abortion as described is a medical necessity for the mother. 
It certainly can't be a medical necessity for the baby.''
  However, these are precisely the arguments that we are hearing today. 
The defenders of this very deplorable act of partial-birth abortion 
argue that it may be a medical necessity. This is distorted thinking. 
Let me speak in their words exactly what they say a medical necessity 
is, by definition.
  In 1993, William Hamilton, the vice president of Planned Parenthood, 
stated that ``medical necessity'' means ``anything a doctor and a woman 
construe to be in her best interest, whether prenatal care or 
abortion.'' And the National Abortion Rights Action League is even more 
outlandish in their definition of ``medical necessity.'' They say that 
``it is a term which generally includes the broadest range of 
situations for which a State will fund an abortion.''
  The truth is, Mr. Speaker, the defenders of partial-birth abortion 
have no interest in seeing the term ``medical necessity'' defined in a 
proper context. For them, abortion has become something that must be 
defended at all costs.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret when we debate serious issues, somebody can 
stand up and make a comment that clearly is not true, and there is not 
the opportunity to give and take.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) is a bright man. The 
gentleman is well educated. To say that my agreement prohibits no 
abortions is absolutely, on its face, ludicrous; it prevents all late-
term abortions.
  Does it have any exception? Yes. The gentleman presumably is a well-
educated individual that knows the Constitution of the United States 
and knows the constitutional edicts from the Supreme Court. The 
gentleman knows his bill is not constitutional; that is the irony of 
the gentleman's contention.
  In fact, the Hoyer-Greenwood alternative is the only alternative that 
prevents abortions. Joe Scheidler of the Right to Life Committee, I say 
to the gentleman, says not of myself, not of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), not to any of the other cosponsors, Joe 
Scheidler says your bill will not stop one abortion.
  Why? The gentleman pretends he is not even listening; perhaps this is 
not important to him.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield himself the 
time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. The gentleman wanted to yield to me.
  Mr. HOYER. I retain the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I see that the gentleman does not 
want to yield me the time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, cute debating tricks on the floor will not 
hack it, I say to my friend. Germaneness will not hack it; hiding 
behind a parliamentary procedure, which says we are not going to allow 
the amendment because it is not germane, when the gentleman knows that 
the Committee on Rules could say it is germane, because we want to 
debate it.
  The gentleman's amendment will not prevent it, and the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) said so on the floor today. How did the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) say it? He said because if you preclude the 
procedure of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), there are three 
other procedures to accomplish the same objective.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) said it. He said it less 
than 3 hours ago. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) cannot get 
around that.
  If the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) is going to be 
intellectually honest, this is a purely political bill. This is a 
serious issue. We ought to deal with it seriously. We should have had 
full debate. We should decide between ourselves what the legitimate 
options are that we can accomplish within the Constitution to protect 
the health of women and protect the lives of babies.
  Your rule did not do that. Your bill does not do that, and the debate 
undermines the quality of this discussion. It is unfortunate.
  My friends, I tell you, that this legislation that we proposed, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and I, is the only piece of 
legislation which would have adopted a policy in the United States of 
America, which 40 States have adopted, which say that we are opposed to 
late-term abortions, post-viability abortions, the State should make 
that criminal.
  Do we make exceptions? Of course. Why? Because the Constitution and 
Supreme Court have said we must, and we should.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to respond to the statements of the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer).
  I would simply point the Members of the House to the language of the 
gentleman's proposal, which vests the discretion to determine whether 
the abortion will be performed or not in the hands of the abortionists; 
that is what the language is. That is undeniable.
  It says, it does not prohibit any abortion if in the judgment of the 
attending physician, the abortion is necessary to avert serious adverse 
health consequences to the woman. I read that before; that is the 
language of the bill. It is important to understand, that in putting 
the gentleman's proposal in context, something that Dr. Warren Hern of 
Colorado has said, and this is not a leading authority on abortion, a 
leading abortionist. He has written a textbook on late-term abortions.
  And this is what he said, and I quote him, ``I will certify,'' Dr. 
Hern said, ``that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and could 
cause grievous injury to her physical health.''
  It is clear that when you vest that discretion, as the proposal of 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) would in the abortionists, no 
abortion will be ruled out. It will be up to the abortionist. If the 
abortionist decides, the abortion will be performed.

[[Page H1789]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey).
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, when I scheduled this bill for the floor, I knew that it 
was going to be a difficult debate. I understood there would be angry 
words. I knew there would be finger pointing and accusation.
  It is not a pleasant debate, Mr. Speaker, because today we are 
debating a very, very cruel and ugly subject. We are debating whether 
or not this Nation will tolerate a procedure that takes a baby, forces 
that baby from the womb, tears the baby's head open, and sucks out its 
brains.
  We are debating whether or not this Nation will tolerate such 
cruelty, whether there are other procedures or not. Let us keep the 
focus on this horrible, frightening, cruel, beastly behavior. We have 
all experienced childbirth. We have all been through it in our own 
lives, and we have seen our children go through it in their lives, 
whether it was me with my little baby or my son with his little baby, 
that exciting moment when we reach over and when we touch our wife's 
stomach and we feel that movement, when she tells us about the 
movements that are there; there is a live baby in that womb. When we 
put our ear down to hear the heartbeat, when we see the sonogram and we 
see the little arms, the little legs and the little features, and 
finally in that magic moment find out if our baby is a boy or a girl, 
that is a live baby in that womb. It has feelings.
  We all talk about and we stress with great emphasis the importance of 
prenatal care in the life cycle of a baby's health, because we know it 
is alive. We know it needs protection and security. It needs every help 
it can have. It does not deserve to be treated at the very inception of 
its life with a cruelty that we would never suffer on to a dumb animal.
  If you cannot see the cruelty, the abject, inhuman cruelty of this 
procedure, then I fear for you. There are others that would say, why 
subject us to this debate, where Members will come down and show the 
charts, show the graphs, show the cruelty and describe it in vivid and 
lurid detail. Why put us through this discomfort? Well, our discomfort 
here is nothing compared to the discomfort of that baby.
  Still they persist. Why make us make this vote, suffer this debate, 
when we know the President will veto it and there will not be the votes 
to override the veto?
  They are asking us here on this floor today, those of us, myself, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), others, who have so much of our 
heart invested in this and so much of our tears and prayers have been 
shed for these babies, why do we try when we know we cannot possibly 
succeed?
  Mr. Speaker, that same question was put to Mother Teresa. That same 
question was put to our sainted Mother Teresa. Her response, Mr. 
Speaker, was, my job and my responsibility is not to succeed. My job 
and my responsibility is to try.
  Bless us, those of us from both sides of the aisle, bless us for 
having heart enough, passion enough, compassion enough, faith enough, 
to try our very, very best to end this horrible, cruel, brutal 
treatment of what must be God's greatest pride, the most innocent 
beautiful baby.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority leader is correct, this is a very personal, 
touching matter; but I rise in strong opposition to this bill, this so-
called partial-birth abortion ban. This bill continues a troubling 
tendency that we have seen in this Congress, the tendency for Congress 
to try to practice medicine. Whether it is legislation prescribing pain 
management or stonewalling on patients' rights or restrictions on a 
woman's right to manage her own reproductive health, this Congress has 
again and again tried to come between patients and their doctors.
  Patients make life and death decisions with their doctors every day, 
with cancer, with renal disease, with neurological disease, and any 
other number of conditions. Many of these decisions are not easy and 
not pretty. Surely pregnant women deserve no less protection of their 
rights than others. In short, this bill is an insult to women, and 
doctors should not be subjected to additional criminal sanctions in 
this area.
  Now all of us would like to see fewer abortions performed in this 
country, and that is why I support education and prevention programs to 
help families avoid unwanted pregnancies; but the question of whether 
or not to have an abortion is one of the most difficult decisions any 
woman can face. Reproductive health care is a personal, ethical, and 
medical matter that should be left to individuals, their doctors, and 
their families without interference from the Government. This 
legislation should be rejected.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, when the partial-birth abortion ban was 
before this Congress last year, the opponents of the act accused the 
proponents of offensive conduct. What was that offensive conduct? What 
was that bad taste that they accused the supporters of the bill of 
being guilty of? It was of describing, of accurately describing, they 
admitted that the proponents accurately described the procedure, the 
act, and they said that offended them. They said it was a sorry 
spectacle for people to accurately describe what happened to these 
late-term babies in their mother's womb.
  They said it was offensive conduct to describe how these babies' 
bodies were dismantled, how they were mutilated, how their young lives 
were ended.
  Let me say that is a sorry spectacle to describe such an act. As a 
civilized society, we should not have to describe such an act because 
it should never occur. Is it not ironic that the very people who say 
what a sick thing to do, what an uncivilized thing to do, what 
outrageous conduct, that they are the very people that rise in this 
body and defend the very act?
  This act has no place in a civilized society. It is a violation of 
our God-given dignity.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Weiner), a member of the committee.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time of this debate, and 
there has been clearly very deep divisions in this House about how to 
proceed with it; but, in fact, I think that when we get behind some of 
the details there is an enormous amount of consensus in this Nation on 
this issue. Despite the previous speaker's contention, there is very 
little debate about the idea that this procedure is one that the we 
should try to avoid. There is very little debate about the idea that 
abortions in general happen too frequently and we should try to reduce 
their numbers any way that we can.

                              {time}  1345

  That is a righteous cause. That is something that we should pursue. 
That is why so many of us support the idea of increasing family 
planning and education and counseling.
  There is no doubt that it is desirable to reduce the number of 
abortions in this country. But there is also broad consensus in this 
country that the health and welfare of the woman is also something that 
needs to be protected.
  The Supreme Court spoke to this eloquently in that very difficult 
decision. Roe v. Wade did not set up a perfect system by any ways, but 
one thing the court did say very clearly was that the woman's right to 
her health and well-being exists throughout her pregnancy.
  When a recent poll was taken of the American people, even people who 
fervently believe that abortion was something that should be outlawed, 
they believed by numbers in the neighborhood of 80 percent that the 
woman's right to health should be included as an exception.
  So why is it that the majority in consideration of this bill has, not 
only said that they oppose that, but they said we will not even allow 
it to be considered on this House floor. They will not even allow an 
option to be brought before this House that might close some of these 
gaps, that might make it easier for those who agree with the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Armey) in his

[[Page H1790]]

 statements about how terrible this procedure is, give us an 
opportunity to form a bipartisan consensus to perhaps reduce the number 
of truly unnecessary abortions if they are existing.
  The reason was made clear earlier in the comments, eloquent and frank 
by one of the foremost leaders in this House against a woman's right to 
choose, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). He said it, he 
departed a little bit from the party line on this, but spoke frankly 
and earnestly. He said this is about getting the camel's nose under the 
tent. This is about starting the process of chipping away at a woman's 
right to choose her own health care, a woman's right to choose, a 
doctor's right to choose. He has been honest and frank about this that 
he believes there should be no abortions in this country, and this was 
the first step.
  This is why the American people see this effort today as being so 
pernicious. This is not about trying to find a solution to a difficult 
problem. This is about chipping away at a woman's right to health care.
  If we were truly going to be honest about this, we would say exactly 
what this is. This is a political exercise for the seventh time. This 
is not about finding that group that the Majority Leader eloquently 
spoke about. This is not about truly finding a solution to this problem 
because we had a vehicle to do that, and the Republicans opposed it.
  We should oppose this measure today, but we should make it clear 
that, if we protect a woman's right to choose, all of our minds are 
open.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, did my colleagues know that when one puts a 
frog in a pot of water and sets it on the range and slowly turns up the 
temperature, the frog will stay in the pot and boil to death without 
jumping out. But if one puts a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will 
jump right back out. So it is with our world today.
  The self-indulgence of our society causes the stark contrast between 
right and wrong to be clouded so that we actually, as a society, 
tolerate these type issues.
  Mr. Speaker, few politicians have credibility on the major moral 
issues of our day. So who does? The Majority Leader mentioned Mother 
Theresa, probably the most Godly life in the world during the 20th 
century. She said this, ``I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace 
today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct 
killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we 
accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other 
people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have 
an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind 
ourselves that love means willing to be willing to give until it 
hurts.''
  She said, ``Many people are also concerned about the violence in this 
great country of the United States.'' She said, ``These concerns are 
very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the 
millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own 
mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today: 
abortion, which brings people to such blindness.''
  She said, and I continue to quote, ``The child is God's gift to the 
family. Each child is created in the special image and likeness of God 
for greater things, to love and to be loved.''
  She closed by saying, ``We cannot solve all the problems in the 
world, but let us never bring in the worst problem of all, and that is 
to destroy love. This is what happens when we tell people to practice 
abortion.''
  Mr. Speaker, this great Nation finally recognized that slavery was 
wrong, and we did something about it. This great Nation must now 
recognize that abortion is wrong and adoption is the option. Let us 
love our children, and the world will be a better place.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Judiciary, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I am sorry to say 
that in reviewing it it really adds up to a sound bite, because we are 
not debating women's health and what can be done. We are not casting a 
constructive, critical eye at what can be built in terms of a system in 
this country about this issue of abortion. It is a word that none of us 
celebrate. We understand that every time an abortion takes place in 
this country, that it spells failure in some way, shape, or form.
  But it is a debate today about women's health. Even the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) in his amendment has an exception for rape and 
incest, an exception, and it deals with an exception to what my 
colleagues are posing today.
  This bill, in order to understand what it does, I think my colleagues 
have to understand first what it does not do. It does not outlaw a 
single method of late-term abortion that my colleagues keep repeating 
over and over again known medically as intact dilation and extraction. 
It does not distinguish between abortions performed before or after 
viability. It does not include any exceptions for abortions where the 
life or the health of the mother is at risk.
  Do my colleagues think that life is tidy for women in this country? 
Have they ever heard of a pregnancy that has gone wrong? Have they ever 
looked at or read about the cases where the fetus is growing without 
any brain tissue? Do they think that mothers just go right down the 
path of celebrating and saying we are going to abort this pregnancy? 
That is an insult to women in this country. Have my colleagues ever 
seen how women's bodies are carved up when it comes to a mastectomy?
  What is this Congress doing about women's health? Today's debate, Mr. 
Speaker, because we are pro-choice some of us does not mean that we are 
pro-abortion. We understand that the life and the health of the mother 
needs to be taken into consideration. That is what Roe v. Wade says.
  It is not a celebration of abortion. We do not like it. We know that 
education, that family planning, that all of these things, and 
investment in research in women's health to prevent these things are 
the most important.
  So I rise in opposition to the bill because the bill does not speak 
to any of these things. It is a political sound bite, and it is a sad 
day in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, today, as we are considering the Partial 
Birth Abortion Ban Act, I want to commend the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Canady) for sponsoring this legislation. The time has come for us 
to take firm and decisive action against this deplorable procedure.
  Our last attempt to ban partial-birth abortions failed, but we must 
continue to do everything in our power to save these innocent lives.
  But do not take my word for it alone. Listen to the voice of the 
medical professionals as has been said in here before today. A number 
of high ranking members of the medical community have voiced their 
strong opposition to partial-birth abortions.
  As has already been stated that C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon 
General, ``Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to 
protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, 
this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.''
  Dr. Pamela Smith at Mount Sinai Hospital in Chicago has stated that 
the abortion methods used in this procedure are associated with a range 
of complications, including extensive bleeding, infertility, and even 
death. The majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy 
mothers and healthy babies.
  The American Medical Association itself has stated that they could 
not find any identified circumstances in which the procedure was the 
only safe and effective abortion method.
  A ``yes'' vote is a vote to protect the lives of women and children. 
It is really that simple. I ask my colleagues to join me today and to 
send a strong message of protecting the lives of mothers and infants. 
Because the greatness of this Nation that we live in

[[Page H1791]]

is not measured by the Dow Jones Industrial average, it is not measured 
by the gross national product. The greatness of this country is 
measured by the character of its people, the integrity of its leaders, 
and how we as a Nation treat those who are most innocent and who are 
most vulnerable.
  I would say that the unborn fits squarely into the middle of that 
category.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Canady) has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), the ranking member, for yielding me this time. I rise in 
strong opposition to the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Act.
  Mr. Speaker, everyone in this room knows that if this Congress 
succeeds in this misguided attempt to play doctor, not one abortion 
will be prevented. This is a very sad debate today. Abortion is a 
failure in every respect. We want to keep them safe, and we want to 
keep them legal.
  But when they are medically necessary to save the life of the mother 
or to protect her future fertility, would not one want one's daughter 
to have that option or one's wife?
  It is so sad also, because this body has been prevented from debating 
the Hoyer-Greenwood substitute or amendment which would declare what we 
all believe, that no one wants late-term abortions, and that we would 
only agree to this procedure in the case of life of the mother or 
future fertility of the mother.
  So to bring charges against a doctor for saving a mother's life or 
her future fertility and the family that she would like to have is 
cruel and unusual punishment. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
legislation.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I grew up in the age before Roe v. Wade. In 
those days, the idea of killing a baby in the womb because it was 
inconvenient would not even occur to the average individual. Elective 
abortion on demand, taxpayer funded abortions, no way. Certainly never 
in my wildest dreams would I have thought that one day I would be 
standing on the floor of the United States House of Representatives 
arguing against a practice in which a defenseless little baby, 
partially delivered, and moments before taking its first breath outside 
the womb, would be stabbed in the skull by an abortionist who would 
then extract the baby's brains, causing the skull to collapse, killing 
the powerless child. Sadly, that is how far we have come in the last 
three decades, or should I say that is how far we have fallen.
  The American Medical Association says about partial-birth abortion, 
it is ``not good medicine'' and ``it is not medically indicated in any 
situation.''
  We often hear from Members of this body talking about helping the 
little guy, looking out for the little guy. Well, I would say to my 
colleagues on the left, this is their chance to look out for truly the 
little guy and the, oh, so little girls, the helpless, the defenseless, 
the powerless, the most vulnerable of all of us. This is their chance 
to finally put a stop to such senseless assaults on those who cannot 
defend themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, those of us who support this legislation hold little 
hope that our President will see the light. He has made his pact with 
the extremists in the abortion industry and their vocal accomplices. 
But we cannot ever concede this issue. We can never surrender.
  Let us have a powerful show of support for this legislation. Let us 
send a passionate message to the President that there is no place in a 
civilized society for the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. 
Let us cast an overwhelming vote in favor of innocent human life.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Why are we here today? What are we doing here? The advocates of this 
legislation have said that we are here to save lives, to prevent 
abortions. But that is not true. It is not what we are doing here. This 
bill is going to be vetoed, as it has before. And there are not the 
votes in the United States Senate to override that veto, and there is 
no one in this Chamber who will honestly argue otherwise. No one will 
stand up after I do and say, oh, this is going to become law; this will 
have an effect in America, because they know it is not true.
  No, this is all about politics. It is not about saving lives. It is 
not about winning hearts. It is about saving seats in the Congress. It 
is about winning seats in the Congress. It is not about making law. It 
is about making noise.
  If the advocates of this bill wanted to make law, they had their 
chance earlier today. They would have supported the right of the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and myself to offer our amendment. 
That is how we make law. Our amendment would ban the so-called partial-
birth abortion and all form of late-term abortions. But it would have 
made exceptions, reasonable exceptions that Americans support; 
exceptions to prevent the loss of life of the mother and exceptions to 
protect the health of the pregnant woman when it is seriously, 
seriously, and that was the emphasis of our amendment, seriously at 
risk.
  But the problem that the supporters had with our amendment is it 
probably would have passed; would have been signed into law. We would 
have made progress in reducing the number of abortions in this country. 
We actually would have accomplished something besides a lot of sound 
and fury. But, instead, once again, we play abortion politics. We 
confuse the American public, and we prove once again that politics 
overrides policy.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, an inquiry of the author of this bill.
  Many of us have watched the gentleman's presentation on the floor. 
The term partial-birth abortion, to a layman and to most physicians, 
would be perceived to be what is called dilation and extraction. Is 
that the procedure that the gentleman intends to outlaw with this bill?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, is there any other 
procedure related to abortion that it is the gentleman's intention to 
outlaw with this bill?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
answer is no.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the clarification on this 
very, very important line of demarcation between the woman's right of 
choice and the outlawing of this very, very hideous procedure.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the bill and to express 
my grave disappointment that we are having a debate that could have 
been avoided if only policy had won out over politics.
  If my colleagues were truly interested in good public policy that 
would become law, we would be debating the Hoyer-Greenwood bill, a 
superior alternative that provides the most broad-based restriction on 
late-term abortions of any bill being considered in the House; a 
proposal that ensures that no healthy woman, with a healthy fetus, can 
terminate her pregnancy in the third trimester regardless of the type 
of procedure used.
  I strongly support these restrictions and always have. But for the 
life and extreme health threats to the mother, I know of no compelling 
reason to terminate a pregnancy at this late stage, and the Hoyer-
Greenwood alternative would have banned all such procedures. Equally 
important from a good public policy perspective is that it would have

[[Page H1792]]

become law. The President has said that he would sign those tough 
standards set in Hoyer-Greenwood.
  But rather than to work to enact meaningful restrictions on late-term 
abortions, which we all agree should be limited, we are again engaging 
in a purely political debate. My Republican colleagues even oppose what 
Governor Bush, the candidate for President, has governed under in 
Texas, which has a law that is even broader than Hoyer-Greenwood. It 
says that no abortion may be performed in the third trimester on a 
viable fetus unless necessary to preserve the woman's life or prevent a 
``substantial risk of serious impairment to her physical or mental 
health, or if the fetus has a severe and irreversible abnormality.'' 
That is the law in the State of Texas. That is the law that Governor 
Bush has been operating under during the last 5 years as governor of 
the State of tax.
  It is a law similar to the 40 laws that have been passed in the 
different States that have such meaningful late-term abortion 
restrictions. It is what Hoyer-Greenwood would have given us the 
opportunity to do. But my Republican colleagues chose politics over 
policy, and they are not saving one life with their legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel)
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is all about politics. Everyone knows that the 
President is going to veto this bill, and there are not sufficient 
votes in the other body to override. So why are we doing this? The 
Republican leadership has decided this is an election year, let us once 
again put up this bill and let us try to get emotions flying.
  Make no mistake about it, my colleagues, this is the start of 
attempts to erode Roe v. Wade, an attempt to drive women to the back 
alleys where abortions will not be prevented but will be performed 
under unsafe conditions resulting in the deaths of many, many women.
  I cannot understand my Republican colleagues who profess, on the one 
hand, to say that the Government should get out of private lives; that 
the Government should not intrude on personal decisions, but they want 
the Government to intrude on the most personal decision made between a 
woman and her doctor, her family and her God. Makes no sense to me 
whatsoever.
  I would like to tell a personal story. Six years ago my wife gave 
birth to a beautiful boy named Phillip. Many of my colleagues know him. 
It was a pregnancy that was unplanned; that was not expected. He is 7 
years younger than my youngest child. My wife became pregnant at age 40 
and gave birth at age 41, and we were concerned about the risks. I am 
pro-choice; my wife is pro-choice. We are not pro-abortion. There is a 
difference. We made the choice.
  The choice was to have this beautiful child. There was much testing, 
there was much heartwrenching, and he is the apple of my eye. But every 
woman, every family, every couple has the right to make that personal 
choice, particularly if it should involve the health of the mother. And 
having no exemption in this bill for the health and well-being of the 
mother, I think is an attempt by this body to impose its will on the 
most personal decision that a wife or a husband and wife or a family 
will make.
  This bill ought to be defeated.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to inquire of the 
distinguished manager of the bill, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Canady), if it is not true that he has circulated a letter about the 
same bill, then numbered 1833, to our colleagues in which he said that 
``this bill bans any abortion in which the person performing the 
abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the 
fetus and completing the delivery. The ban would have the effect of 
prohibiting any abortion in which a child was partially delivered and 
then killed no matter what the,'' he calls, ``abortionist decides to 
call his particular technique.''
  In other words, the gentleman is saying that his ban would apply to 
any abortion method. Does the gentleman recall the letter that was 
circulated?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. The statement in the letter is absolutely 
accurate.
  The terminology that happens to be applied to the procedure is not 
what is at issue. It is a matter of fact, however, that the procedure 
which exists, which is used, which would come within the scope of this 
bill is the dilation and extraction procedure, which we just discussed 
in the colloquy with the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a general description that is being used, and 
the ban would, as the gentleman said, have the effect of prohibiting 
any abortion in which a child was partially delivered.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. If the gentleman would further yield, the 
language of the bill has been changed since that letter was circulated 
to make clear that the child actually has to be partially delivered not 
just into the birth canal but outside of the mother's body. And the 
only procedure that does that is the one I have described.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining; and then the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Canady) will have the closing statement.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, 
and I do so arm in arm with the people of the First District of the 
State of Washington, who, when presented with an initiative 2 years ago 
to do what this bill does, rejected it soundly 60 percent to 39 
percent.
  Now, why did the people of the First District do that? They are 
uncomfortable with late-term abortions, as we all are. So why did they 
reject the exact bill so adamantly that the majority now proposes? Two 
reasons. They have common sense, and they got it.
  They understood and understand that this bill and that initiative 
could ban the woman's right of choice at any time during the pregnancy, 
at any time taking away that woman's right of choice which has been 
constitutionally recognized. They got it. Some do not get it here.
  Secondly, they had the common sense to understand that a woman's 
health rights ought to be recognized if we are going to pass statute. 
It is common sense that a woman's health ought to be taken into 
consideration, which this bill does not recognize one iota. They 
rejected that, and America rejects this bill because it is an exercise 
in politics rather than in policy.
  And let me just say one thing personal to my friends across the 
aisle. We would do much better for American, and we would prevent many 
more abortions if we spent more time preventing teenage pregnancy than 
making political statements.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) has 
9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine any subject more important 
than the one we debate today. This debate is not about religious 
doctrine or even about policy options. It is a debate about our 
understanding of human dignity, what it means to be a member of the 
human family, even though tiny, powerless and unwanted.
  Yesterday, we discussed organ transplants, another life-and-death 
issue. But today's debate goes beyond that to the issue of whether one 
radical medical procedure, called partial-birth abortion, is an 
acceptable exercise of a woman's right to choose. And by the way, that 
choice is either a dead baby or a live baby. That is the choice, 
whether it is a woman's right to choose or whether it is the surgical 
butchery of what a prominent pro-choice Senator called infanticide.
  We are knee deep in a culture of death. The cheapening of life is 
demonstrated in the high school shootings,

[[Page H1793]]

the coarsening of our national conscience by our entertainment 
industry, the fact that since Roe v. Wade in 1973 there have been 35 
million abortions. We are knee deep in a culture of death.
  I should ask the people who support this procedure to forgive my use 
of the word abortion. I know they dislike that harsh word. They prefer 
euphemisms like termination of a pregnancy. Every pregnancy terminates 
at the end of 9 months. Or ``removal of the products of conception.'' 
And the word killing is to be avoided like the plague. So the little 
infant is not killed, but rather ``undergoes demise.'' But as the great 
heavyweight boxer Joe Louis said about his one-time opponent Billy Conn 
years ago, ``You can run, but you can't hide.'' And we cannot hide from 
the ugly reality of partial-birth infanticide.
  To those who think that the phrase ``sanctity of life'' is too 
theological, although we are kind of comfortable with the sanctity of 
an oath or the sanctity of a contract, I suggest the notion of human 
dignity is interchangeable and appropriate.

                              {time}  1415

  Now, the Declaration of Independence, an awkward document in this 
debate, proclaims the right to life is an endowment from the Creator 
and is an inalienable right.
  Have my colleagues ever seen a doctor have a card that says ``eyes, 
ear, nose, throat, and abortionist?'' Somehow, there is something bad 
about that word. So when an abortionist plunges his scissors into the 
back of the neck of his tiny, squirming, struggling-to-live victim, he 
has obliterated and utterly irrevocably destroyed that little infant's 
right to life and his human dignity.
  Oh, we posture, we pronounce about human rights, everybody's human 
rights, whether in China or Serbia or Colombia. Well, not everybody's 
human rights, because we deny any rights to the target of every 
abortion.
  PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, God how I wish we 
had one for humans, especially the tiny, powerless, defenseless ones 
who find themselves innocently inconvenient.
  We talk about our birthright. By what right do we steal anyone's 
birthright? But that is what happens in every abortion. We treat the 
unborn as a thing, desensitized, dehumanized, depersonalized thing, to 
be discarded with the other junk.
  Charles Peguy, a French novelist, once said, ``If you possess the 
truth and remain silent, you become the accomplice of liars and 
forgers.''
  So long as we tolerate this dehumanizing procedure, so long as we do 
not draw a line in the sand, we become guilty accomplices in the 
slaughter.
  Lady Macbeth can speak for us when she says, ``all the perfumes of 
Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.''
  Everyone in this Chamber, everyone in this Chamber, has ancestors 
that reach back in an unbroken chain of humanity through forgotten 
millennia to the first man and woman. And so, we here and now are alive 
because our ancestors successfully ran the marathon of life, surviving 
wars, famines, floods, earthquakes, disease, the four Horsemen of the 
Apocalypse. But they survived. They endured through it all.
  What a cosmic tragedy for this little one four-fifths born to have 
his life snuffed out as he is about to cross the finish line of that 
millennia long marathon.
  But here at the beginning of the 21st century, have we traveled very 
far from those societies who behead their criminals? And what crime has 
this tiny, struggling, four-fifths born infant committed? The crime of 
being unwanted.
  Oh, we have unwanted people, the homeless. But they have eyes to weep 
with. They have voices to cry out with. And when we do pay attention 
occasionally, we provide them with shelter. But not the little ones 
about to ``undergo demise.''
  I recommend my colleagues avert their eyes and take solace in the 
fact that the torture of partial-birth abortion takes only the time it 
takes to stab the little baby in the back of the neck and the little 
flailing arms and legs stiffen at the moment of truth.
  Look, in this advanced democracy, in the year 2000, is it our 
crowning achievement that we have learned to treat people as things? We 
are not debating policy options. This is a debate about our 
understanding of human dignity. Our moment in history is marked by a 
mortal conflict between a culture of life and a culture of death.
  God put us in the world to do noble things, to love and to cherish 
our fellow human beings, not to destroy them. Today we must choose 
sides.
  When Napoleon died, somebody said, God finally got bored with him. I 
really am afraid God is going to be bored with us, especially if we do 
not put that line in the sand.
  Support this excellent bill. Step back from the abyss.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day. The Members of the 
House of Representatives are forced to confront the President and 
overwhelmingly approve a ban on the abhorrent abortion procedure known 
as partial-birth abortion. Mr. Speaker, the President has repeatedly 
vetoed this legislation. Our goal is to unequivocally end this immoral, 
unhealthy and unnecessary procedure. Congress passed bans on partial-
birth abortions in both the 104th and 105th Congresses. And today, in 
the second session of the 106th Congress, the House will once again 
express its will--the voice of the American people--that partial birth 
abortions be stopped.
  Since 1995, thirty states have enacted laws banning partial-birth 
abortions. Although many of these laws have not taken effect because of 
temporary or permanent injunctions, they clearly indicate the growing 
national movement against the frivolous waste of human life and the 
culture of death. Lifestyle should never come at the expense of Life.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons Congress must continually defend the 
lives of unborn children from abortionists is the Roe v. Wade decision. 
This is a subject about which I am particularly concerned. I hereby 
submit for the Record my address delivered to the Pregnancy Resource 
Center of Northeast Colorado, Fort Morgan, Colorado, on January 22, 
2000.

                        27 Years of Roe v. Wade


             justice to all living humans, born and unborn

       In just a few hours our planet will have made its 22nd full 
     revolution since that long anticipated night when we ushered 
     in a new millennium, a new century, and a New Year. I'll 
     admit now, I was a bit anxious about the whole ``Y2K'' thing, 
     although outwardly, I dismissed the predictions of power 
     outages, water shortages, and financial crashes as ``silly.''
       Just before we were to leave for a New Year's Eve party, my 
     wife Maureen returned from the grocery store to find me on 
     the back porch filling up my daughter's swimming pool and 
     some five-gallon cans with water. ``What are you doing out 
     here in the cold?'' she asked. ``Oh!'' I said embarrassed. 
     ``Checking for leaks.''
       I turned off the hose and rushed in to help my wife put 
     away the groceries--which included about $50 worth of 
     batteries! Now, you have to understand, she holds a Ph.D. in 
     Electrical Engineering. When she gets nervous, I get nervous. 
     She said, ``Well, we just never seem to have them when we 
     need them, and, by the way, good thinking on the water.''
       Of course we now reflect on the turn of the millennium with 
     a certain amount of amusement and remember all those TV news 
     anchors grasping for things to say, reaching for laborious 
     words to fill up the air time which might otherwise have been 
     devoted to disaster. It turned out like the opening of Al 
     Capone's safe. Nothing there. Nothing remarkable. Nothing 
     changed. Our lives went on uninterrupted. Our world just kept 
     revolving.
       And here in America, our country was still the only country 
     on the planet to recognize abortion as a constitutional 
     right--a right that has been exercised 40 million times since 
     it was first fabricated on this day in 1973. Despite the 
     benevolent advice of our government, which it mandates be 
     printed on every bottle of holiday champagne, the very unborn 
     babies we are urged to protect still face more than a 1 in 4 
     chance they won't even make it out of the womb.
       This 22nd day of the millennium marks the 27th year since 
     Roe v. Wade, when our government stripped from the unborn 
     child the fundamental Right to Life. Prior to that, fetuses 
     were still babies, and the Constitution protected them, just 
     like the Declaration of Independence suggests it should.
       Somehow, those black-robed despots of the Court presumed to 
     know better than God Himself. For 197 years, America had 
     always accepted as ``self evident'' and true ``that all men 
     are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator 
     with certain unalienable Rights, among them are Life'' and 
     all the rest.
       Tonight I want to congratulate this Pro-Life Alliance 
     assembled here, because you have not abandoned that opening 
     precept of our American Declaration. Nor have you abandoned 
     the self-evident Truth that, regardless of the opinions of 
     Washington, D.C.'s elite, the natural, God-given Rights of 
     the unborn are still very much in force.
       Your very presence here tonight reinforces it. Your money, 
     your time, and most of all, your prayers are all testimony to 
     the unifying force of the Creator and the true benevolence of 
     Divine Providence. Indeed, it

[[Page H1794]]

     was 2000 years ago that He revealed to the world the way of 
     victory over death, through a Child.
       And it is because of the promise of the Christ Child that 
     we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God hears our 
     prayers for all souls. He hears our prayers that His mercy be 
     generously dispensed upon the souls of the unborn, the souls 
     of their mothers, their fathers, and even their executioners 
     and all those who, through their own weakness, have become 
     the counselors of darkness.
       Our prayer and our mission here tonight is for life. 
     Friends, the simple fact is, at abortion mills across the 
     country, there is simply too much death, and too much 
     violence. It is wrong, and it must stop. Whether perpetrated 
     against the unborn, or any other human being, violence and 
     premature death is always wrong.
       The Greeks used to say ``in prosperity it is very easy to 
     find a friend, but in adversity it is the most difficult of 
     all things.'' I'm most fortunate to have some good friends 
     here tonight who are not afraid of adversity, and I'm honored 
     that they're here, especially, State Senator Marilyn 
     Musgrave. She is one of the true heroines of Colorado 
     politics, and among the strongest voices at the Capitol for 
     those least able to defend themselves.
       I'm extremely pleased to see young people who are concerned 
     about human life, because I think the single most important 
     responsibility of any society is the transmission of values 
     from one generation to the next. That is of critical 
     importance in a free society. We understand freedom, and true 
     freedom means making choices that have real impact.
       Self-government means that we make decisions that literally 
     shape the future. Imagine that, God the Creator of origin 
     allows us to be the creator of the future. We shape the 
     world. The powerful meaning of that is perhaps articulated 
     best in the Fifth Book of Moses, more commonly called 
     Deuteronomy. Here, God says, ``I call heaven and earth to 
     witness against you this day, that I have set before you life 
     and death, blessing and curse; therefore, chose life, that 
     you and your descendents may live.''
       Now, let me tell you how politicians read this.
       Most politicians read Scripture like a set of statutes. 
     There must be some loopholes in here, right? Maybe we can 
     send this to the Rules Committee with a ``motion to 
     instruct'' that will make it easier to deal with if and when 
     it ever comes time to vote. Perhaps this really doesn't 
     matter as long as a quorum is not present.
       Well, as a politicians and a Christian, this verse really 
     speaks to me. It reminds me of the media. Let me repeat it. 
     ``I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day.'' 
     I have lots of friends who are reporters. I've developed a 
     certain level of camaraderie with some of them. Eventually 
     you feel comfortable talking off the record about politics, 
     personalities, and ideas--just shooting the breeze.
       But when that reporter switches on the tape recorder, or 
     flips open the notebook, it's time to get serious. My actions 
     are now a matter of, well, a matter of record. Deuteronomy 
     tells us the choices we all make are recorded in heaven. I 
     remember quite vividly when my high school religion teacher 
     described this within the context of ``free will.''
       The verse continues, ``I've set before you life and death, 
     blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your 
     descendants may live.'' You see God gives us the widest 
     latitude in deciding. And more often than not the choices He 
     gives us are black and white, polar opposites, sometime 
     diametrically opposed: Life vs. death. Blessing vs. cursing. 
     In these and lesser cases, the choices we make are important 
     not just for ourselves. No, these choices are eternal and 
     have an impact upon those who follow us.
       As a United States Congressman, I'm asked to make lots of 
     these big decisions. The challenge is to make choices that 
     will make the future brighter than today. Those choices are 
     not always easy to make. Being a leader is sometimes 
     unpleasant.
       When our leaders are unable to evaluate profound decisions 
     within the proper context of ``life or death, blessing or 
     cursing,'' they are prone to consult their pollsters. In 
     fact, these kinds of policymakers are sometimes pejoratively 
     referred to as ``poll vaulters.''
       Poll vaulting is when you take a public opinion poll, find 
     out where everyone's going, use the poll to vault yourself 
     ahead of the crowd. When the crowd finally arrives at the 
     point you're at, you say, ``I was here first. I'm the 
     leader.''
       If you think I exaggerate let me describe this 
     advertisement from a political trade magazine. Across the top 
     it says, ``ABORTION! Right to life? Women's rights? State 
     laws?'' The copy says, ``As an elected official, do you 
     really know what your constituents think about these issues? 
     Legislators can't afford to be out of step with voters on 
     this emotional issue. Let us design and conduct a survey of 
     voters in your district, to help you develop your position on 
     this most divisive issue of the decade.''
       Friends, this is what's sick about Washington. This is not 
     leadership. This is poll vaulting, and today we see elected 
     officials in the highest offices in the land conducting polls 
     every day to measure what they think we want to hear, and to 
     carefully calculate the exact language so as to say it 
     precisely right. What America needs are fewer politicians 
     telling us what we want to hear, and more leaders who profess 
     the truth.
       It seems so simple, until you realize, our failure to 
     address this phenomenon in our Churches, Synagogues, 
     businesses, in the media, and yes, even our failure at the 
     ballot box, has resulted in 40 million abortions. Friends, 
     this is no small matter. And frankly, we should be winning 
     because all the advantages are on our side.
       Since our politicians read the polls, let's see what the 
     polls say. First, let's get beyond the ``pro-life, pro-
     choice'' labels. You can give me a parachute and drop me out 
     of a plane anywhere in America. In three of the five places I 
     might land, the first person I see when asked, ``are you pro-
     choice,'' will answer ``yes;'' because ``choice'' is a 
     powerful word, and no one wants to be against choice. That, 
     by the way, goes for me. Yes, I'm pro-choice. The more 
     choices the better as far as I'm concerned. In fact, in order 
     to choose you must first be alive which is another reason I 
     oppose abortion.
       Now, The Chronicle of Higher Education recently found that 
     among 250,000 entering college freshmen, support for legal 
     abortion is at its lowest level since 1979. At UCLA, for 
     example, 53.5 percent said they agreed abortion should be 
     legal. That's 3% down from the previous year. I mention UCLA 
     because I thought the number would be much higher there.
       A 1998 New York Times/CBS poll found only 15 percent 
     of Americans believe a woman should be permitted to have 
     an abortion during the second trimester of pregnancy. Only 
     7 percent of women should be permitted to have an abortion 
     during the last three months of pregnancy.
       A recent Wirthlin poll found only 21 percent believe that 
     abortion should be legal for any reason during the first 
     three months of pregnancy. Only 9 percent feel abortion 
     should be legal at any time during pregnancy and for any 
     reason.
       Most encouraging is that same Wirthlin poll found most 
     Americans believe abortion should not be permitted after 
     signs of life can be detected. A lopsided 61 percent disagree 
     with the statement ``abortion should be permitted after fetal 
     brainwaves are detected.'' Fifty eight percent agree with the 
     statement, ``abortion should not be permitted after the fetal 
     heartbeat has begun.''
       What that says friends is that most people in America 
     understand that choosing an abortion is a choice of 
     diametrically opposed outcomes--that it should not be taken 
     lightly. And don't think for a minute the value of human life 
     is not considered. And that is an admission that, with rare 
     exception, we all recognize the termination of a human life, 
     and we all know it.
       The beating of a heart. I saw that just a month ago. At the 
     Schaffer house, we're all excited. Our fifth baby is due one 
     month from today, on George Washington's birthday.
       I went in for the well check with Maureen. I told the 
     doctor I'd never seen an actual ultra sound. I'd only seen 
     the still photos. He wheeled the cart in and said, ``what do 
     you want to look at?'' I said the whole enchilada, head to 
     toe. That's just what I got to see.
       I counted all ten toes, fingers too. In fact I saw a hand 
     opening and closing. I'm no doctor, but it looked to me like 
     little George is a Georgette. Doctor Hoffman pretty much 
     agreed but wouldn't guarantee. The girls seem to be pretty 
     modest even before they're born and this one didn't make it 
     easy to see. At any rate, my wife tells me I better come up 
     with a better name. My apologies to any Georgettes in the 
     audience tonight.
       I gazed at that ultrasound screen, and watched in real 
     time, our baby's heart beating, just as it has been beating 
     ever since somewhere between days 18 and 21, which is before 
     most women find out for sure they're pregnant.
       And I thought to myself, 40 million tiny beating hearts. 
     How can any sane society tolerate 40 million abortions? Have 
     the people at NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood seen one of 
     these ultrasounds? I'm sure most of them have. All my 
     ``proabortion'' colleagues in the Congress? Do you suppose 
     they've seen one of these? Surely they must have.
       Then why does it seem like there's so many more of them and 
     not enough of us?
       I'll tell you why. The pro-abortion movement in America has 
     plotted a campaign-style strategy that assumes we are all 
     idiots. They want us to believe women are somehow degraded 
     when caring, compassionate people talk about the Rights of 
     their offspring.
       Unfortunately, it seems the first people to buy all that 
     baloney are politicians. Just yesterday, the Rocky Mountain 
     News ran a story about an abortion rally that took place this 
     week on the Statehouse steps in Denver.
       One of the people I serve with in Congress was pictured 
     there and quoted saying, ``We can't afford to be 
     complacent.'' According to the News, ``he added he wanted to 
     make sure his 9-year-old daughter would have the same freedom 
     of reproductive choice enjoyed by women today. `Our daughters 
     are counting on us.' '' Well I say, our daughters are 
     indeed counting on us, but not for more abortions.
       Well, the first thing we need to do is quit feeling like a 
     minority and start acting like a majority, because we are. We 
     need to stop blaming the media, stop blaming Planned 
     Parenthood, because we know on any given day a strong 
     majority of Americans agree with us. And if we can't convince 
     our neighbors that nothing in our society is more important 
     than human life, then we are simply not trying hard enough.
       Our greatest weapon is the truth. Dr. John C. Wilke, who 
     before becoming president of the National Right to Life 
     Committee, was president of the Ohio Right to Life, first 
     impressed this upon me. He came to my high

[[Page H1795]]

     school in Cincinnati. I was proud to march beside him in 
     Washington, D.C. 20 years ago in the annual pro-life march on 
     the nation's capital.
       He taught about the fundamental truths that relate to 
     abortion. No matter what your faith, your culture, or even 
     your opinion about abortion rights, there are certain 
     undeniable truths.
       Fact: From the moment of conception, this being is alive. 
     It is not dead. In fact, the more science knows about fetal 
     development, the more science has confirmed that the 
     beginning of any one human life, biologically speaking, 
     begins at the union of his father's sperm and his mother's 
     ovum, a process called ``conception.''
       Fact: This being is distinctly human with 46 human 
     chromosomes, male or female (not an ``it'') complete, alive, 
     and growing. These live human beings possess the ability to 
     change our lives, change our communities, and to change our 
     world. That's not a condemnation. That's a tribute to human 
     existence, and it is awesome. And since the 1960's we have 
     raised a generation that places less importance upon the 
     awesome responsibility of creating a child. Even in this 
     room, how many of our own children understand this sacred 
     act--a man and woman becoming one in the same flesh, 
     sanctified by God, the result of which is human life?
       Oh we might have said the words, and had the discussion 
     with our kids, but look what we're competing against. They're 
     bombarded everywhere they turn with secular messages that 
     promote destruction over life.
       It's everywhere, at school, on the internet, on the radio, 
     the TV, it comes in the mail, from the neighborhood. Even my 
     mother, gave my 12 year old twin girls some stupid book about 
     boys as a gift. I had to take it away, but that's a story I 
     don't need to get into. There are even some ministers of the 
     Gospel who will preach that the quality of one's life is of 
     equal or greater concern than life itself. I don't deny that 
     quality is important, but if quality comes first, then we 
     have invented a formula to end world hunger, homelessness, 
     disease and suffering by simply killing all those afflicted. 
     If quality is supreme, then abortion rights activists have 
     invented a doctrine that justifies even the most horrific 
     mass executions throughout the history of human civilization.
       Friends, our battle is for the truth. This war will not be 
     won by the Supreme Court. It will not be won in Washington. 
     Yes, there are some battles there to be won or lost but the 
     real contest for the heart must be won in communities like 
     ours all across the country.
       Even Jesus Christ Himself said, ``render unto Caesar that 
     which belongs to Caesar, and to God what is God's.'' The 
     souls of the children belong to God. Take it from me, the 
     bureaucracy does not care. The bureaucracy cannot love. I was 
     there at that famous National Prayer Breakfast when Mother 
     Teresa lectured the President and the Congress. There is 
     no such thing as an unwanted child she said. If you don't 
     want your child, ``give it to me,'' she said. True to her 
     word, her Sisters of Charity have never turned away an 
     unwanted child.
       Fortunately for us the founders understood this. They even 
     understood Deuteronomy, the concept of free will. They built 
     a government upon the belief that Americans should be trusted 
     while acknowledging there would always be treacherous risk 
     that some Americans would make the wrong choices. But total 
     freedom is also the only way for the people to keep their 
     government honest and frankly, the only chance for true 
     honor, integrity, and virtue to exist--the very kind of 
     qualities heaven and earth have been called to record this 
     day against us.
       You know, sometimes doing what's right is just hard work. 
     Actually, it usually is easy if you think about it, but 
     sometimes it's very difficult, inconvenient. God knows this.
       If we're going to be concerned about whether a child lives, 
     then we also have to be concerned about the rest of her day 
     when she's 2 years old, 6 years old, 9 years old, and so on. 
     That's what crisis pregnancy centers are all about, and 
     that's why we're here tonight. We know that if any child is 
     mislead to believe his life, at any time, didn't matter, or 
     doesn't matter, or might not matter, then we have loosened 
     the ties that all children need to their community, to one 
     another, to their mother, and to God. Abortion dissolves this 
     bond, and without it children will inevitably turn against 
     their parents and other children.
       Let me begin to close by bringing us back to what we have 
     failed to communicate to the nation, and where we have failed 
     America in my judgment. We have not had the moral courage to 
     stand up and say that the expense of ignoring the truth is 
     death, misery, human degradation, and the loss of opportunity 
     and dignity for millions of humans.
       When people define freedom as an eight-foot bubble on your 
     way to an abortion mill, it trivializes the protective bubble 
     we really ought to be concerned about, which is the womb. 
     What kind of society is it that makes free speech on a public 
     sidewalk a crime, and then dismisses the silent screams of 
     1.2 million abortions performed this year as matters of 
     privacy?
       And I'm sick and tired of the double standard that allows 
     the Clinton administration on one day, to send American 
     soldiers into battle halfway around the globe, because ethnic 
     cleansing is terrible; and then the next day open up the 
     White House to abortion lobbyists. It is their industry that 
     disproportionately preys upon the children of black and 
     Latino mothers, effectively waging a more sinister and more 
     viscous kind of ethnic cleansing right in our own backyard.
       When put in that perspective, the people of any country in 
     the world have every right to be as appalled by abortion in 
     America as we are appalled when we see pictures of dead 
     children in the streets of Kosovo. The same people who 
     advocate free needles for heroin addicts, who offer condoms 
     and Depo-Provera to children in Title X clinics behind their 
     parents' backs, who describe ``safe sex'' as anything outside 
     of marriage, and who gleefully tell about the drugs they 
     ``didn't inhale,'' cause people to die.
       They're the same ones who have been willing to embrace 
     moral degradation in our schools, and tolerate this pestilent 
     preoccupation with death, and attack the family. These people 
     are just as guilty as the kid who pulls the trigger on his 
     friends.
       And for generations we've lacked the nerve and courage 
     to stand up and say, ``I'm not going anywhere until this 
     community is safe for every child!''
       This is about our children. It's about human life. Even 
     today, the rest of the world looks to us for security because 
     they've read our Declaration of Independence, and they assume 
     we're serious about it. That's why American troops are 
     deployed to missions all around the planet at this very 
     moment.
       And so while our sons and daughters in uniform secure peace 
     and save lives in places like Bosnia, East Timor, Haiti, 
     Kosovo, and Korea, don't you think we owe them the same kind 
     of courage here at home? To show them that what they defend 
     matters? That the truth is for real and it's important?
       In 1987 Ted Koppel spoke about truth before the graduating 
     class of Duke University. He explained how ``we have spent 
     five thousand years as a race of rational human beings trying 
     to drag ourselves out of the primeval slime by searching for 
     truth.''
       Now this is Ted Koppel, the guy on Nightline . . . a 
     journalist. He said, ``our society finds truth too strong a 
     medicine to digest undiluted. In its purest form truth is not 
     a polite tap on the shoulder; it is a howling reproach.
       ``What Moses brought down from Mount Sinai were not the ten 
     suggestions . . . they were Commandments. Are, not were.''
       Friends, I've spoken tonight for a long time about three 
     things: free will, the ugly truth about abortion, and moral 
     decay.
       As a Catholic, I'm a great admirer of the Holy Father Pope 
     John Paul II. Regardless of whether you're a Catholic, his 
     message about the times we are in is one for us all.
       This year, the Jubilee Year 2000, is a special moment. For 
     all Christians it is a year of great anticipation, a 
     millennium measured from that first night in Bethlehem that 
     has come to define our very souls. To this day the Nativity 
     shapes our character as God's people on earth.
       This is a year for reconciliation within the Church and 
     throughout our society. It is a year for hope and growth. It 
     is a year to emphasize to the world how a Child changed the 
     course of humanity and how 2000 years later He is still the 
     greatest influence on how we live, and how we understand real 
     freedom and real liberty.
       Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville in his great 1835 work 
     Democracy in America observed, ``America is great because 
     America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, 
     America will cease to be great.'' The British statesman, 
     Edmund Burke wrote his famous quote in 1795, ``All that is 
     necessary for evil to triumph is good men to do nothing.''
       The Jubilee Year is our year to do something good, to do 
     something great, to choose blessing over cursing, to choose 
     life over death. Remember heaven and earth are indeed called 
     to record this day against us. And so I ask you to firmly 
     rely upon the protection of Divine Providence. Pledge your 
     lives, your fortunes, and your sacred honor, just as the 
     founders did in that last beautiful sentence of the 
     Declaration. See to it that this Republic for which we stand 
     is truly one nation under God, and that we do extend the full 
     benefits of Liberty and Justice to all living human beings, 
     born and unborn. Thank you.

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, every once in a while, we as elected 
leaders are asked to take a stand on an issue that touches the inner-
core of our moral obligation to protect the innocent from violent 
death. Today I rise in support of a reasonable bill to ban a heinous 
procedure to partially deliver fully formed babies, and then kill them.
  The ongoing debate over the ``partial-birth'' abortion procedure 
gives all of us an opportunity to join together in protecting innocent 
children from a horrific and gruesome procedure. Only the most 
calloused among us can hear the description of this procedure and not 
react with disgust. The overwhelming majority of the American people 
want to ban partial-birth abortions and no matter what your position is 
on abortion, this grisly procedure is indefensible in a civilized 
society.
  According to Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National 
Coalition of Abortion Providers, the occurrences of partial-birth 
abortions is much more frequent than was once admitted, further calling 
into question the defensibility of this procedure. Clearly, a pattern 
of deception has emerged regarding how and when this procedure is 
performed. We do now know that thousands of partial-birth abortions are 
performed annually, the vast majority

[[Page H1796]]

of which are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, on 
healthy babies of healthy mothers.
  We must put an end to this barbaric procedure where the difference 
between abortion and murder is literally a few inches, and the moral 
implications for our society of allowing such a procedure are profound. 
This is effective legislation to ban an unbelievably gruesome act. I 
urge my colleagues to support this legislation to protect those who 
cannot protect themselves.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
support for H.R. 3660, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, as I have 
done a number of times since 1995. Despite the failure of this 
Administration to sign this legislation into law on previous occasions, 
I am pleased this Congress continues to send, by an overwhelming 
majority, the message that partial birth abortion is wrong.
  We continue to debate this issue, even though the facts are quite 
clear. Partial birth abortion is not a medical procedure. Doctor after 
doctor has testified that partial birth abortion procedure is never 
medically necessary. Our former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, has 
gone on to conclude that the procedure poses a significant threat to 
the mother's health and future fertility. However, giving the benefit 
of the doubt, this legislation does provide an exception should a case 
arise when a doctor performs the procedure to save the life of the 
mother.
  Overwhelming support exists to ban partial birth abortions. Since 
Congress began voting to ban partial birth abortions, numerous state 
legislatures have voted to end them. The House of Representatives has 
consistently overridden President Clinton's veto of this legislation, 
and I am confident we will do so again. However, before President 
Clinton follows through on his veto threat, I would like him to take 
another look at the support that exists to ban this abortion procedure, 
the opinions of doctors and his conscience.
  I understand the issue of abortion is difficult for many. Well-
intentioned people will continue to disagree. How long, though, can our 
society continue to justify its denial of the right to life to the 
defenseless unborn? The value of life has been consistently cheapened. 
Partial birth abortion is a graphic example of the worst of abortion, 
in which a child is killed after being partly delivered. Congress must 
continue to take a stand to uphold the value of life, especially in 
these instances in which life is so blatantly being destroyed.
  I urge President Clinton to take a courageous stand and support this 
legislation when it is sent to him. I urge my colleagues to continue 
their support for human life and for a ban on partial birth abortions.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 
3660, the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban. This legislation is a 
direct attack on a woman's right to choose and an effort to undermine 
support for reproductive choice.
  H.R. 3660 endangers women's health by failing to include a 
constitutionally mandated exception to protect the health of women. The 
Supreme Court requires that a woman's life and health be protected 
throughout pregnancy and at no point can a state compel a woman to 
sacrifice herself. I believe that a woman's health--including her 
future fertility and mental health--should be protected.
  H.R. 3660 is vague, broadly written and will not restrict just one 
method of abortion but rather, it prohibits procedures which are used 
in first and second trimester abortions. This is a blatant attempt to 
legislate health care procedures. This bill restricts a woman's right 
to choose and lets politicians rather than women and their families 
make health decisions.
  Restricting options for women makes a tragic situation even worse for 
a woman and her family. Women and their doctors, not state legislators 
or Members of Congress, should be deciding the best medical procedure.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2660 and vote ``no.''
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3660, a bill to 
ban a late-term abortion procedure known as partial birth abortion.
  I will vote in favor of this legislation, in favor of banning the 
partial birth abortion procedure, as I have done in the both 104th and 
105th Congress. I will, however, vote against the rule, which denies 
members of both parties the opportunity to offer amendments. This 
legislation should have been considered under a fair and open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, in the end, I believe that the partial birth abortion 
procedure is a cruel and unnecessary procedure that should be outlawed. 
Congress must act accordingly and pass legislation to achieve that end.
  Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, in the last few days, my office has been 
flooded with calls asking me to support the ban on partial birth 
abortions. If all we were doing today was prohibiting late term 
abortions, I could support that vote, even as a strongly pro-choice 
Representative.
  The calls have prompted me to evaluate my own history with this issue 
and to carefully review the language of the legislation before us. 
Although I have voted against similar legislation in the past, I stated 
during my 1998 campaign that I would support a ban on late-term 
abortions except in instances in which the life of the mother was 
endangered by continuing the pregnancy. This position represents a 
departure from my previous voting history, but a conscious change that 
I can accept.
  The authors of H.R. 3660 would have all of us believe that that is 
exactly what we are voting on today. However, after reading the 
language of the bill, I find that I cannot support this bill. Unlike 
any other legislation that I have been asked to consider, this 
legislation permits doctors to be sent to jail for up to 2 years, 
simply for making a medical decision. There are other enforcement tools 
available to discourage the use of this procedure without authorizing 
imprisonment. Those tools include substantial civil fines and the 
permanent suspension of a physician's medical license. Both of these 
are strong incentives; we do not need to criminalize medical 
judgements. With this legislation today, we have guaranteed that 
medical decisions are not independently made on the basis of the 
patient's unique health needs, but include a consideration of the 
criminal consequences.
  The legislation under consideration today could have been drafted in 
a manner that prohibits the procedure, without having to rely on 
imprisonment as the enforcement mechanism. During my time in the 
California State Assembly, for example, we considered legislation to 
ban partial birth abortions. The tool to enforce the prohibition was a 
stiff monetary fine, followed by the temporary suspension of the 
physician's medical license. We also could have employed the ``Sense of 
Congress'' mechanism to express our strong distaste for late term 
abortions. Or, we could have actually produced a piece of legislation 
that prohibits the specific, medically recognized late term medical 
procedure called an ``intact dilation and extraction.'' Any of these 
legislative vehicles could have been used, and I would have supported 
any of those efforts, including permanent suspension of a physician's 
medical license, provided they incorporated an exception where the life 
of the mother was in jeopardy. Because of the addition of criminal 
penalties for doctors, we failed to have a meaningful debate to 
restrict the use of late term abortion procedures. For this reason, I 
cast a ``no'' vote today and will cast a ``no'' vote to override the 
certain veto of H.R. 3660.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I applaud you for ensuring H.R. 
3660, the ``Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999,'' was placed on 
this session's calendar. It is an extremely important issue we continue 
to address, yet can't seem to get signed into law; this is 
unacceptable. Banning the horrendous, barbaric process known as 
``partial-birth abortion,'' should be an issue every civilized person 
should support; whether pro-life or pro-abortion.
  Partial-birth abortions are performed very late in pregnancy and 
involve the forced partial birth of the child, who is then killed by 
the doctors before completing delivery. H.R. 3660 addresses this 
practice, by prohibiting medical doctors who perform abortions from 
using such ``partial birth'' procedures; it also imposes fines or 
potential imprisonment of up to two years. It includes an exception to 
prosecution for doctors who can show the procedure was necessary in 
order to preserve the life of the mother.
  H.R. 3660 protects the unborn from the most grotesque form of death 
imaginable. Passage of this measure would be a major step forward in 
protecting the lives of those who are most vulnerable. This is limited, 
but good, decent and necessary legislation; and protects children 
against a horrible form of death.
  I urge you to preserve human life and vote ``yes'' for passage of 
H.R. 3660.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting the partial-birth 
abortion ban act.
  We have a great economy, Mr. Speaker. Everybody's driving around in 
fancy cars, living in fancy houses, and unemployment is lower than most 
economists ever dreamed. Yet our culture is in shambles. Kids are 
killing other kids. Schools are not longer considered safe havens. And 
we wonder, why.
  Mr. Speaker, legalized partial-abortion represents a total breakdown 
in our society. It says to our children--don't worry, if you don't want 
to take responsibility for your actions, it's okay to do whatever it 
takes for the sake of convenience. Right now, it's okay to kill a baby 
boy or girl as the poor, defenseless child is a third of the way from 
being completely delivered into this world.
  Do we wonder why teens are throwing their babies in dumpsters and in 
public restroom toilets? Do we need more of a wake-up call than this 
culture of death?
  This is yet another time when I am thankful that I am a Republican, 
as we are a party

[[Page H1797]]

united against the evils of partial-birth abortion. I commend the 70 or 
so Democrats, including the entire minority leadership, who will stand 
against the President and the Vice President in defense of innocent 
human life.
  But I challenge my friends and colleagues who are not yet with the 
nearly 300 Members of the House who support this legislation to have a 
change of heart. Whether you are for or against abortion--we're talking 
about infanticide here.
  I especially would like to challenge my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle who insisted on labeling the Republican Party as somehow 
``anti-Catholic.'' If there is one, single bill the Roman Catholic 
Church has supported with all her might and glory--it is the partial-
birth abortion ban act. My party supports it. Join us.
  If we are to turn around this culture, we need to change hearts--and 
laws. What we permit, we condone. What we ban, we condemn.
  A clear majority--and in some instances, a supermajority--of 
Americans condemn partial-birth abortion. Partial-birth abortion is 
never necessary. Partial-birth abortion is not rare. Partial-birth 
abortion is not right.
  We have a lot of work to do to teach our children on morality and 
virtues, from infidelity, to divorce, to abortion. All of these things 
are connected. But we must first start with ourselves. Let's take the 
first step to turning the culture of this great Nation around. Let us 
vote--clear and unambiguously--to eliminate the infanticide known as 
partial-birth abortion.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3660, the 
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
  Make no mistake about it, this is a political vote and a political 
debate--a debate fraught with inflammatory rhetoric and distorted 
facts. The majority knows that the President will veto this bill and 
are using it as a political football to score points with certain 
segments of society.
  Since we are here, I would like to get the facts straight about this 
issue. There is no medical procedure called a ``partial birth 
abortion''--that is a political term made by opponents of choice to 
distort the issue. There is a procedure called ``intact D & E'' that is 
used in cases of terrible family tragedy. These are catastrophic 
pregnancies, when the fetus has a horrible abnormality, or the 
pregnancy seriously threatens the mother's life or health.
  This bill threatens doctors with fines and imprisonment, and prevents 
not a single teen pregnancy. The vote to pass this bill is a blatant 
attempt to shelter the hypocrisy of the abortion debate--that the 
strongest opponents of the right to choose also oppose programs 
promoting comprehensive sex education and birth control, which actually 
reduce unintended pregnancies. If they want to prevent abortion, they 
should improve access to contraception by increasing funding for title 
X and contraceptive research, and improving access to insurance 
coverage of contraception. Research shows that these policies have 
proven the most effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Instead, 
anti-choice Members of Congress would make access to family planning 
options more difficult, more dangerous, more expensive, and more 
humiliating.
  A decision concerning a woman's pregnancy can't get more private or 
more personal. Women in conference with their Doctors, not politicians, 
must decide what medical treatments are the best for them. Doctors 
decide to carry out the ``intact D & E procedure'' as a last resort. 
Doctors use the ``intact D & E procedure'' when they believe it is the 
safest way to end a pregnancy and leave the woman with the best chance 
to have a healthy baby in the future. Congress should not second-guess 
their medical judgment.
  I ask my colleagues in the majority, who often express their disdain 
at the Federal Government's involvement in their personal lives, to 
oppose this bill. I would hope that the majority could get as 
impassioned about protecting the right of a woman to make a personal 
choice about her body as they do about a person owning and buying a 
gun.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that we have this 
legislation before us again today. This is the third time this bill has 
been brought before the House despite previous vetoes and failures to 
override these vetoes.
  This legislation is not an appropriate way in which to address the 
late-term abortion issue. Abortion is a very serious and personal issue 
and prior to viability, should be a decision made by the prospective 
mother, her family, religious counselor, and her doctor. By pursuing 
restrictive legislation such as H.R. 3660, we are destroying the Roe v. 
Wade balance between a woman's right to choose and the State's interest 
in protecting potential life after viability. After fetal viability, 
States may ban abortion so long as a woman's life and health are 
protected. Currently some 41 States have laws in place that address 
abortion after viability.
  It is for these reasons, that I have supported H.R. 2149, The 
Proposed Late-Term Abortion Restriction Act. This legislation provides 
a Federal ban on all post-viability abortions, with the narrow 
exception of those needed to preserve the woman's life or to avoid 
serious adverse health consequences. This bill would ensure that no 
woman could pursue a legal abortion during the final trimester of her 
pregnancy if she is carrying a healthy fetus. This legislation leaves 
the decision in the hands of the doctors, not lawmakers. Americans want 
medical decisions made by their doctors, as evidenced by their support 
for health insurance reform legislation that allows doctors final say 
in the decisionmaking process. In fact, 88 percent of all Americans 
support a health exception for the mother. The Supreme Court requires 
that a woman's life and health must be protected throughout her 
pregnancy; at no point can the State compel a woman to sacrifice her 
life in exchange for the life of the fetus. The bill gives doctors the 
ability to make this determination, with the knowledge that if they 
perform an abortion after fetus viability and without a situation 
threatening the mother's life, they will be held responsible in 
criminal and civil court.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose later-term, post-viability abortions, except 
those necessary to protect a woman's life and her health. And I oppose 
the manner in which this Congress continues to bring up this issue each 
year with the knowledge that this bill will be vetoed while there is 
strong bipartisan support in the Congress and by the President for H.R. 
2149, the Late-Term Abortion Restriction Act. Accordingly, I strongly 
urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3660.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3660, 
the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. This important legislation 
reaffirms this Chamber's commitment to the preservation of life--and 
the rights of unborn babies to be protected from a procedure that is 
morally unconscionable.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to put an end to this inhumane and cruel 
procedure that ends the life of a fetus while it is partially outside 
the body of the mother. Our colleagues who are medical doctors have 
stated their belief--and others in the medical community have 
testified--that this procedure is never needed to protect a woman's 
health and some say it is needed in only rare cases to protect a 
woman's life. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act makes it a federal 
crime to perform this particular form of abortion, but it does not 
prevent other procedures that are considered necessary to protect the 
life and health of the mother.
  The President has vetoed this legislation twice. Twice the House has 
voted to override the veto, but unfortunately the Senate has been 
unable to achieve the two-thirds vote necessary to override the veto. 
Since 1995 we have had fifteen votes in the House on this issue--votes 
on the rule, votes on amendments, votes on final passage--and fifteen 
times I have voted in support of banning this procedure. Those of us 
who support this ban will not give up until this fight has been won.
  Mr. Speaker, my record has always been pro-life. I have listened to 
considerable debate and discussion from the experts on this issue over 
the years. I have personally talked to many constituents about abortion 
and pro-life issues, and I have consistently come down on the side of 
life. Today I will once again come down on the side of life and vote 
for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and I urge my colleagues' 
support.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3660, the so-
called Partial Birth Abortion ban.
  First, we should not be considering a ban on a medical procedure. 
Doctors are licensed to practice medicine, and they swear to do what is 
in the best interest of their patients. Members of Congress have no 
place in this decision, and we should not for the first time in our 
nation's history outlaw a medical procedure.
  Secondly, the bill is much too broadly drafted and would likely 
violate a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose. The bill 
is not limited to late term abortions, and the wording of the bill is 
so loosely written that it could be construed to ban abortions that are 
currently protected by the Constitution.
  Thirdly and most importantly, I oppose this legislation because it 
does not include an exception for the health of the mother. I am 
opposed to post-viability abortions. But if a pregnant woman's life is 
at stake or her health is at serious risk, doctors and patients deserve 
to have access to a full range of medical procedures to prevent the 
harm. This legislation does not afford women the protection they need 
to prevent serious injury, and I therefore will oppose the bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, thank you Chairman Hyde for 
the opportunity to address H.R. 3660, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 
Act of 2000. This act, despite its title is nothing more than an 
attempt to inhibit a woman's constitutional right to choose.
  Although the majority conveniently skirts the issue of the 1973 
Supreme Court decision of

[[Page H1798]]

Roe v. Wade, this law is still in effect and we must recognize a 
woman's right to have an abortion especially her life is threatened.
  Yes, it is true that technological advancement in the medical field 
has enabled women to better monitor their pregnancies so that they may 
bring healthy children into this world. However, some pregnancies may 
involve problems that may threaten the life and/or health of the 
mother.
  For example, continuing the pregnancy may result in severe heart 
disease, malignancies and kidney failure. In these situations, when a 
woman is faced with a life or death decision, she must have the right 
to make a choice whether to continue her pregnancy.
  The procedure referred to in H.R. 3660 has been used to protect the 
mother's life but many times these late term abortions are primarily 
done when the abnormalities of the fetus are so extreme that 
independent life is not possible.
  Many times in the issue of abortion we tend to glorify a potential 
life but refuse to acknowledge the actual living human being that has 
conceived that life.
  This actual living human being has rights enumerated in the 
Constitution that can not be infringed upon regardless of what type of 
abortion is being performed especially if it is to save the life of the 
mother.
  If society picks and chooses which type of abortion one should have 
than once again we are taking away the right of a woman to choose.
  I would be amiss I did not highlight the fact that the terminology 
being employed by proponent of this bill is a term with absolutely no 
medical or scientific meaning.
  On the contrary, this term is a being used solely to enrage and 
misguide the public. In fact, this term was actually adopted from a 
speech given by an anti-abortion advocate. Hence, the attempt to 
assuage our concerns that this legislation is not an attempt to 
circumvent a woman's constitutional right is simply untrue.
  Therefore, I will not use this non-medical term ``partial birth'' 
abortion, but instead give this bill the title it deserves, the 
``Abortion Ban of 2000.''
  H.R. 3660 is another attempt to put politics before women's health. 
The overwhelming majority of courts have to have ruled on challenges to 
state so-called ``partial-birth abortion'' bans have declared that bans 
unconstitutional.
  Furthermore, six federal district courts have issued permanent 
injunctions against statutes virtually identical to H.R. 3660 and the 
Supreme Court is about to review this same issue in April.
  Thus, I agree with my Democratic colleagues that any action by 
Congress would be premature and even mooted by the Court's decision.
  Notwithstanding the potentially mootness of this discussion, 
proponents of this legislation not only mischaracterize the reasons 
underlying the use of late term abortions, but they failed to even 
recognize the constitutional rights espoused by the Supreme Court in 
Roe and reaffirmed in Casey.
  The ambiguity of this legislation further frustrates the rights of 
women in the nation and chills legitimately protected rights.
  Consequently, this legislation could essentially ban more one type of 
procedure because it fails to distinguish between abortions before and 
after viability.
  These are just some of the many problems with H.R. 3660 and these 
alone should make anyone question the appropriateness of such 
legislation.
  We cannot straddle the fence on this issue. It is either protect the 
rights of women or take them away completely.
  Women have fought hard and long to have autonomy over their bodies 
and by putting restrictions on what type of abortions she is allowed to 
receive would put women back in the era of Pre-Roe v. Wade.
  By banning partial birth abortions not only are we taking the right 
of women to have autonomy over their bodies but we are also taking the 
right of women to live their lives as healthy American citizens and 
sentencing them to death.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
speak in opposition of H.R. 3660. More importantly, on a very difficult 
decision for women and their families.
  The subject of abortion has always been very controversial. The 
choice of whether or not to have an abortion is difficult and highly 
personal.
  Although I do not personally support abortion, I do not feel that 
Congress should interfere in this extremely private decision and force 
its views on women through legislative means.
  I can only hope that women faced with this decision would consult 
with their doctors, families, and religious counselors. This is 
especially true in the tragic instance where an abortion may become 
necessary late in a pregnancy.
  This ban would leave the life and health of women unprotected. These 
exemptions have been consistently protected by the U.S. Supreme Court. 
There is no exception under this ban to protect the mother or her 
health at any point during her pregnancy.
  In fact, Texas law bans all third-trimester abortions, except for 
those involving the health and life of the mother. I voted for this law 
when I was in the Texas legislature and would support it now if those 
exceptions were included.
  This bill is nothing but a political maneuver. If the majority was 
interested in banning late-term abortions, they would allow us to vote 
on language that is identical to the Texas law. Until then, I cannot 
support this bill.
   Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on final passage of H.R. 3660.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in total support of H.R. 3660, 
the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000. This legislation puts an 
end to this horrific and unnecessary procedure that results in the 
useless deaths of several thousand children every year.
  Mr. Speaker, very little has changed regarding partial birth abortion 
since we last had the opportunity to take action against it. It is 
still opposed by nearly seventy percent (70) Americans. Hundreds of 
medical doctors, including former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, 
still claim that the procedure is ``never medically necessary to 
protect the mother's health or future fertility.'' It is still 
performed ninety percent (90) of the time after the fifth month of 
pregnancy. Thirty (30) states still have banned the procedure since 
1995. Two-thirds of the House still supports the ban, while the 
President still opposes the sanctity of human life.
  As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. Partial-birth 
abortion is a brutal and needless procedure that it seems no one 
besides those in the White House think ought to be legal. I urge my 
colleagues to recognize our moral obligation to protect the unborn by 
supporting this legislation before us this morning.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose all late term abortions with 
exceptions only when the mother's own life is at risk or to prevent 
serious consequences to her health.
  Unfortunately, we are again considering legislation which fails to 
provide these vital protections for the mother, a bill which will again 
be vetoed by the President. In addition, federal courts have blocked 
fifteen different state laws with similar or identical language because 
they do not contain health exceptions as required by the Supreme Court 
and because the term ``partial birth abortion'' has no medical meaning.
  I would urge the Majority to allow this House to consider 
legislation--the Greenwood-Hoyer bill, of which I am a co-sponsor--that 
bans all late term abortions while offering the necessary and 
appropriate protections for the mother and that could become law.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. The rule 
and bill are fair and allows for an honest vote on the Partial Birth 
Abortion bill. H.R. 3660 allows for a clear vote in support of ending 
this heinous practice or a vote against life by opposing this 
legislation.
  It breaks my heart that we have to debate this bill. It pains me that 
this procedure is being allowed to take place in our nation. I find it 
hard to believe that my esteemed colleagues can with good conscience 
oppose this rule or bill.
  This bill is not about a medically necessary procedure, it is about 
abortion extremists pushing our country's moral limits over the edge. 
When I think of this procedure, I am reminded of the Nazi regime and 
their depraved view of the sanctity of life and I dread what the future 
holds for a generation that allows this procedure to occur.
  Recently, I heard a compelling argument for banning partial-birth 
abortion. The question was asked, ``So would you accept the fact that 
once the baby is separated from the mother, that baby cannot be 
killed.''
  The answer was dodged and was never answered other than, ``A baby is 
born when the baby is born.''
  The discussion continued without ever receiving a clear answer from 
the advocate of this procedure. Why? Because when pressed, an 
abortionist can not clearly answer that question and at the same time 
defend partial-birth abortion. It is a terrible practice that kills a 
baby, a living breathing human life. If we began doing this to cattle 
or dogs, imagine the outcry we would hear from PETA and from the same 
members who defend this practice.
  Obviously, the real question is when is a baby born? Is it when a 
foot is out? Is it when a hand reaches out of the womb? Is a child born 
only when their head has been delivered? I ask my colleagues that 
support this procedure to answer that question during general debate--
if they can.
  Pro-abortionist have no legitimate arguments to stand upon. They want 
to paint a picture that women are at risk so therefore they should be 
able to take the life of the child. Let's face it, every pregnancy 
poses a risk to

[[Page H1799]]

the life of a mother. Women by the very act of becoming a mother are 
unselfishly putting themselves at risk.
  We should embrace all life as precious--the old, the young, the 
disabled, the unattractive and the unborn. How the Clinton-Gore 
Administration can with a clear conscience veto this legislation is 
beyond me.
  Let's not repeat history and continue this Holocaust. I encourage my 
colleagues to support H.R. 3660.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 457, the bill is considered read for 
amendment and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


        Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Frank of Massachusetts moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     3660 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendments:
       Page 2, line 18, after ``injury'' insert ``, or to avert 
     serious adverse longterm physical health consequences to the 
     mother''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that this 
has come to a motion to recommit. That is a consequence of the very 
lamentable refusal of the majority to allow any amendments to this 
bill.
  Indeed, if I had my preference, this would not be a motion to 
recommit. There was a consensus measure worked out in a bipartisan 
fashion by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), and others; but it is not germane to the 
bill.
  When the Committee on Rules would not allow that as an amendment, 
this became our only choice for recommittal. But I offer it, anyway, 
even though in the eyes of many, even if it passed, it would not make 
the bill fully acceptable. But it would clearly make it less damaging. 
Because here is what the bill does in the form in which it was 
presented.
  It says that even if in the opinion of the physician a failure to use 
this procedure in these circumstances could result in severe physical 
harm to the mother, he could perform it only at risk of going to 
prison. It shows how extreme the bill is.
  And I stress that because there are many who believe that this is a 
right a woman should have untrammeled legislatively who think this is 
too much, this amendment that I offer, of an impingement and would not 
support the bill. But others would feel differently.
  The fact, however, is that the majority is so intent, I believe, 
unfortunately, on an issue that they will not allow even this 
amendment. Because I must tell my colleagues that while again this 
might be to the distress of many, an amendment like this would probably 
change enough votes so that a veto could be overridden.
  If the intention was in fact to minimize this procedure to have it 
occur only when it was medically necessary, indeed the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the Hoyer-Greenwood amendment, would 
have been made in order and would have passed. And if it had passed, 
this amendment would not have been offered.
  Failing that, this amendment at least reduces the harm. It is a 
restriction because it rules out mental health. I believe myself that 
there are often very good mental health reasons for allowing a woman to 
undergo this anguishing procedure. But this amendment concedes even 
that. It says, okay, they believe mental health cannot be trusted. I 
disagree.
  But in the interest of, at least, trying to diminish the harm and 
draw some lines, we said, okay, can we at least get an acknowledgment 
that physical health, severe, long-lasting physical health can be a 
reason for this. And the majority says no.
  That is a sign of a lack of willingness to be reasonable. It is a 
willingness to insist, I believe, on both a procedure, no committee, no 
amendment, and a bill that is so extreme that even adverse physical 
consequences to the health of the mother cannot be a reason. So that 
what we are talking about, as I said, is an issue and not a bill.
  There could be a consensus in this House on trying to reduce the 
procedure and reducing late-term abortions. That is not what the bill 
does. The bill is a continuation in an ongoing political activity.
  I will predict what will happen. The bill will pass. It will be 
vetoed. The veto override will be held. The veto override will be held 
so that it can be brought forward at a politically propitious time. And 
people will then be accused if they vote to uphold a veto of a bill 
that is very possibly unconstitutional, according to many circuits, 
they will be accused of a callousness, they will be accused of a 
disregard.
  Well, the fact is that two separate amendments had been offered, 
which, if either had been adopted, would have led many people to have 
voted for a bill which would have substantially reduced the procedure 
either in terms of the physical health or, better yet, in terms of the 
lateness. Neither amendment was allowed.
  If, in fact, people were trying genuinely to minimize this issue, one 
or both of those amendments would have been voted on and we could have 
gotten a law. But it is easy to predict what will happen. We will get 
no law. We will get a veto. We will get an override vote on a veto held 
late in the Congress.
  This is a bill, I said it before and I am going to repeat it, with no 
committee hearing or markup, a bill which is the subject of severe 
debate in the courts, where the Federal circuit courts have divided and 
many have held this sort of legislation unconstitutional, does not even 
go to committee for the kind of constitutional examination that might 
help.
  Then amendments are rejected, a bipartisan amendment widely 
supported. I noticed 14 Republicans voted against the rule. By 
Republican standards, they are a very disciplined lot. That is a great 
cataclysm, 14 Republicans voting against the rule, in protest against 
the arbitrary procedure.
  So late in the congressional term, we will have a vote on an abortion 
veto override on a very rigid bill that makes no allowance even for the 
fiscal health of the mother after a procedure in which there was no 
committee and no amendment. That is a late-term abortion. It will come 
late in the term and aborts the legislative process.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by making the observation that this motion 
is part of a long line of efforts to divert attention from the reality 
of what takes place when a partial-birth abortion is performed.
  In the course of this debate, which has gone on not only in this 
Congress but in the two previous Congresses, we have seen attempt after 
attempt to change the subject, to cloud the issue, to confuse the 
American people, to mislead the Members of this House.
  Now, while I certainly respect the intentions of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), I must humbly submit that this amendment is 
another measure which would simply divert us from what we should be 
focusing on, and that is the horror of partial-birth abortion.
  Now let me point out a couple of things. First of all, the Members of 
the House should be well aware that H.R. 3660 already contains an 
exception for partial-birth abortions that are necessary to save the 
life of the mother. During the course of this debate, it has been 
suggested otherwise. But for any Members who have any doubt about that, 
let me simply refer them to page 2 of the bill beginning at line 15, 
where the exception is stated with great clarity.
  Now, second, Members should know that the health exception proposed 
by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) rests on a premise that 
has absolutely no basis in fact. And that is the premise that partial-
birth

[[Page H1800]]

abortion is necessary to avert any adverse physical health consequences 
to the mother.
  The truth is that the partial-birth abortion procedure is a rogue 
medical procedure that is not recognized by the medical profession, was 
created and is used by a few fringe abortionists, and is never 
medically indicated to avert any health consequences to the mother.
  My colleagues do not have to take my word for it. I would not ask my 
colleagues to take my word for that. Let us hear what the American 
Medical Association has to say about the procedure.
  In a 1997 letter to Senator Rick Santorum, the AMA stated that the 
partial-birth abortion procedure is ``not good medicine and is not 
medically indicated in any situation.''
  We have heard from other physicians who have made the same point time 
and time again. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that 
``partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a 
mother's health or future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure 
can pose a significant threat to both her immediate health and future 
fertility.''

                              {time}  1430

  If you do not find those statements by physicians and representatives 
of the medical profession persuasive, listen to what the abortionists 
themselves have to say about this procedure. Dr. Warren Hern, one of 
the Nation's leading experts on abortion who authored a textbook, 
indeed it is the textbook on late-term abortion procedures, has stated, 
and I quote him, you really can't defend, those are his words, partial-
birth abortion. He went on to say that he ``would dispute any statement 
that this is the safest procedure to use.'' According to Dr. Hern, 
turning the fetus to a breech position is potentially dangerous and, 
again quoting him, you have to be concerned about causing amniotic 
fluid embolism or placental abruption if you do that. That is what one 
of the leading abortionists in the country had to say about this 
procedure which he said he could not defend. So the argument that this 
procedure could ever be necessary to protect the health of the mother 
simply does not stand up to analysis.
  I would urge the Members of the House to oppose this. Let me bring 
the attention of the Members of the House back to the reality of what 
we are talking about in this bill, the reality of what takes place when 
a partial-birth abortion is performed. Earlier in the debate, I 
mentioned that at the same stage of pregnancy when most of these 
procedures are performed, we see heroic efforts undertaken to save the 
life of the child in the womb. Here we have an example of surgery that 
is being performed to correct a condition that had been detected in a 
child in the womb. This was at around 21 weeks. The incision was made 
in the mother's womb, and the child voluntarily, an action, reaches out 
and grasps the finger of the physician who is performing the surgery. I 
ask you, as you consider your vote on this measure, to consider this 
image. Contemplate the meaning of this child's hand at 21 weeks' 
gestation reaching out of its mother's womb to grasp the hand of the 
physician. Consider our common humanity. Reject this motion and pass 
this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of passage of the 
bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 140, 
nays 289, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 103]

                               YEAS--140

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (OH)
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kind (WI)
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Larson
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Napolitano
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--289

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand

[[Page H1801]]


     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Campbell
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Vento

                              {time}  1456

  Messrs. HUTCHINSON, DEUTSCH, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Messrs. FORD, 
WEINER, SWEENEY, HASTINGS of Florida, and THOMPSON of California, and 
Ms. KILPATRICK, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, and Ms. EDDIE 
BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SPRATT, BAIRD, FRELINGHUYSEN, and BILBRAY, and Ms. PRYCE of 
Ohio, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, Ms. PELOSI and Mrs. KELLY changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 287, 
nays 141, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 104]

                               YEAS--287

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--141

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     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
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Campbell
     Cook
     Crane
     Granger
     Portman
     Velazquez
     Vento

                              {time}  1505

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that my voting card 
did not register during final passage of H.R. 3660, rollcall vote 104. 
I intended to vote ``yea'' on passage of the ``Partial Birth Abortion 
Ban Act.''
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, because of a prior commitment, I was 
unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 104 today on passage 
of H.R. 3660, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.
  I am an original cosponsor of this legislation. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________