[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 111 (Tuesday, September 19, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7817-H7825]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1700
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4577, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2001
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on
the bill (H.R. 4577) making appropriations for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Coburn moves that the managers on the part of the House
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R.
4577, be instructed to recede to Section 517 of the Senate
Amendment to the House bill, prohibiting the use of funds to
distribute postcoital emergency contraception (the morning-
after pill) to minors on the premises or in the facilities of
any elementary or secondary school.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) will be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair, who has the
right to close on this debate?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has the right to
close.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion to instruct is to bring the
House in line with the Senate's vote on this very issue, and we are
going to hear a broad debate this evening about the pros and cons of
postcontraception, but that is not what I think this debate is. I think
the debate is whether or not parents ought to be made or allowed to be
involved in significant decisions of their children, and what we are
doing now in 180 schools in this country is excepting out parents from
a decision that they need to know about, excepting out parents and the
child's physician from a medical decision that is being made for that
individual.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I ask, as we await some other Members who are a little
better informed on this than I, I did have some questions for the
gentleman from
[[Page H7818]]
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). As I read the instruction, and I am not totally
familiar with the Senate language, he said this was to protect the
rights of parents. As written, the instruction would say that that was
a prohibition, even if the parents consented. Is that the gentleman's
intent that even if the parents consented this would not be allowed?
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 not have any problem; that is their
individual choice. I have a problem in destroying the life of an unborn
baby; that is a different topic. But if, in fact, a parent is involved,
but under the auspices of the HCSC planning guidelines and under the
auspices of title 10, there is no obligation to inform the parents
whatsoever.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman for that, but the point is, as I read the instruction, if
that is an accurate repeat of the language in the Senate bill, it does
not allow for an exception where the parents want to. So it goes from
saying the parents are not involved at all on both sides.
I would say one other thing, and I see the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Porter) is coming, and I am prepared to yield the time to him, but
I am struck, when we discuss the question of abortion and those who
make it illegal talk about an unborn child, I think we ought to be
clear when we are talking now about a morning after bill, because we
are often told there is a heartbeat, there are feet, there are various
representations of that unborn child.
We are clearly here talking about a situation where there is no
physical manifestation of the unborn child of the sort we have seen,
there are no feet, there is no heartbeat. This is a philosophical
objection. This is an effort to make illegal something which is
philosophically expressed opposition to a form of birth control. It is
very different than the kinds of representations we get.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of the
time that was allocated to me to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, for purposes of
control.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will control the remaining time allotted to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 28 minutes
remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 14 minutes of my
time be allocated to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) for purposes of control.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) will control 14 minutes of the 28 minutes
allotted to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I frankly am of a split mind on this issue. I am fairly
old fashioned, and I come from a part of the country where these kinds
of subjects are not discussed much in public, and I frankly get uneasy
when I walk into a lot of places and see condoms and other devices
being made available on a wholesale basis. I am very uncomfortable
about that. But I think it is also a complicated question.
I have concerns about the motion of the gentleman from Oklahoma and
actually there are a number of reasons. First of all, because I am not
necessarily convinced that the best approach in my city, my hometown
would be the best approach in New York or San Francisco or Lexington,
Kentucky or other communities or vice versa. And I think one of the
problems with the Coburn motion is that it gets in the way of local
people being able to decide how they want to handle a very sensitive
problem.
Secondly, I think you do have conflicting views about which approach
actually saves the most lives and prevents the most abortions. And I
suspect that what the answer is to that question again depends on the
community morals and practices and culture. And so while I understand
those who say that they find issues like this distasteful and sometimes
they get, in fact, angry.
Mr. Speaker, I really wonder whether it is wise for the Congress to
tell local school districts that one approach is better than another.
The other thing I would simply say is that we are trying to close up
this session, and that means we are trying to resolve differences; that
means we are trying to keep as much language off appropriation bills as
possible, and it seems to me that to the extent that these riders are
attached, which are legislative in nature, they get in the way of our
ability to finish our work before the end of the fiscal year, and that
causes all kinds of turmoil.
And also, frankly, if we are going to start making motions to
instruct on this bill, then a number of us are going to have motions to
instruct to try to accomplish policy ends that we think are important
also. So if we are about to get into that business, then I guess we are
going to have to get into it all the way.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I just say in response to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), there are 4,000 clinics, outside of school clinics, where
you can get this done with Federal funds, what we are saying is, is
this should not be happening in a middle school. There is plenty of
places that if you want this service, you can get it, but it should not
be occurring in the seventh and eighth grades in this country without a
parent involved.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the motion of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
is certainly a proper motion and appropriate, but it is a very
unfortunate motion for us.
It contravenes instructions given to us by our own leadership, it
attempts to circumvent the House rules and procedures, and it makes the
completion of our conference more difficult at a time when we are
trying to finish our work. In meetings in mid-July, I should tell the
gentleman from Oklahoma, the bicameral majority party leadership
decided that we should drop all controversial riders to the Labor, HHS
and Education bill. The senior senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman
of the Senate subcommittee, Mr. Specter, and I were instructed to do
exactly that to move this process forward.
Mr. Speaker, based on these instructions, the Senate receded from its
position on this amendment; and all other similar riders were dropped
in the conference.
Mr. Speaker, the motion if offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma as
an amendment to the bill would not be in order in the House. Thus the
import of this action is to attempt to do by motion what the rules
would have prevented him from doing by amendment on the House floor.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this motion will only serve to sharpen
differences within this bill and delay the completion of the final
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, of the funds made available in the bill, Elementary and
Secondary Education Act funds are prohibited, by law, from being used
for health clinics of any sort. Only Public Health Service funds
provide a substantial source for the activities that the gentleman is
alluding to.
I note that the gentleman is a member, and a valued member, of the
Committee on Commerce; he is, in fact, vice chair of the Subcommittee
on Health. I also note that recently coming across my desk he wrote
with others a dear colleague relating to the Ryan White AIDS program.
Now, we support very strongly the Ryan White AIDS program; and we, in
fact, have very substantially increased it over the President's budget
request. I certainly applaud the bipartisanship on that matter. While
amending the Public Health Services Act to reauthorize Ryan White, why
could not the provisions included in the motion be included there? Why
did not the gentleman simply add the provisions that
[[Page H7819]]
he is attempting now to attach to an appropriation bill, where it is
not appropriate, to the authorizing bill that he had before him at that
time?
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he would respond to that.
It seems to me that the Commerce Committee is where it ought to be
taken up. Over and over, authorizers tell appropriators to stay off of
their turf, to not do what they are authorized to do in their
jurisdiction. I agree with that. We include no authorizing provisions
in the House bill without the express approval of the authorizers. But
the gentleman from Oklahoma telling let us get into their jurisdiction
and put this Provision on the appropriations bill.
It does not belong in this bill. It should not be discussed here. The
motion simply attempts to put legislative language into an
appropriation bill, we do not want to do that. We wanted the
authorizers to do their work.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, number one, I would thank the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Porter), I wished the gentleman would have given me the idea 2
months ago or 3 months ago, and I would have been happy to put that in
the bill.
Number two, I find it somewhat ironic. I want to stay on the issue. I
find it somewhat ironic that we cannot use direction in terms of
spending with the motion to commit, but yet we are funding hundreds and
hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of programs that never
have been authorized by any of the authorizing committees.
What I would ask the gentleman is, does he believe it is right that a
12-year old should get a morning after pill in a school clinic and a
parent never know anything about it. I mean, that is what this issue is
about. Whether or not we are going to give a prescription drug to a
young adolescent female without her parents ever knowing in school;
that is what the objection is. That is why this rider is there.
The Senate passed this 54-41. This is not a pro-life, pro-abortion
debate. This is a debate about parents being involved. As we look at
the young people in our country today, the one problem we are seeing
and we are trying to solve in many of the programs that the gentleman
has graciously funded through his appropriation to re-empower parents.
{time} 1715
This bill tears them down. This bill separates by not having this. So
the Senate did want this. They voted it. All we are asking is for the
committee, should the House accept this motion to instruct, to follow
that and give parents back some of their power.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this motion
to instruct. The Helms amendment, which my colleague urges the Labor-
HHS conferees to accept, was, in fact, voted on and rejected during the
conference meetings in late July.
Our colleagues who opposed it understood that supporting this motion
would interfere in locally made decisions.
There are roughly 1,200 school-based health clinics serving young
people across the country, a partnership between local schools and
community health providers. Three of four middle- and high school-based
clinics do not offer contraceptive services at all.
Of the 25 percent that provide these services, the decision to do so
has been made collectively by the schools, the parents, community
organizations and the young people themselves.
The community works together to decide what is best for their young
people and Congress should respect these local decisions. For those
communities that choose to offer contraceptive services, access to
contraception, including emergency contraception, just a double dose of
a regular oral contraceptive, is crucial to helping teens avoid
unintended pregnancies.
I am the co-chair of the Congressional Advisory Panel to the National
Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, along with my colleague, the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). We have worked very hard in a
bipartisan way to find community-based solutions to the epidemic of
teen pregnancies that we have experienced in the 1990s. The good news
is that the teen pregnancy rate has fallen for 7 straight years. The
bad news is that American teenagers still experience 1 million
pregnancies each year.
In fact, teen pregnancy rates in this country are higher than in all
other industrialized countries, twice as high as in England or Canada,
nine times as high as in the Netherlands or Japan. Sadly, the risk of
unintended pregnancy is only part of the problem facing our young
people. There is also an epidemic of sexually transmitted disease among
young Americans, but they do not even know it. Kids think it cannot
happen to them, but it can and it is.
Kids are getting STDs like chlamydia, which years later can rob them
of their fertility; HPV, which can lead to cervical and penile cancers;
and HIV for which tragically there is still no cure.
Young people may visit a school-based clinic for information about
pregnancy prevention, but leave with facts about STDs that can save
their lives.
I believe that if we continue to deliver strong and consistent
messages about the importance of abstaining from sex, the risk of STDs,
accurate information about contraception, we can continue to make
continued progress in the fight against teen pregnancy and STDs; but
since we know from recent data that three-quarters of the decline in
the United States teen pregnancy rate is attributable to improved
contraceptive use among teenagers, denying teens access to
contraception will only jeopardize this progress.
It does not make sense. That is why we should leave decisions about
providing contraception and other important health services to local
communities and schools. School-based clinics have an enormous job to
do, and they are doing a world of good.
Let us continue to support our communities, as they work to protect
the health and safety of their kids. I urge my colleagues to defeat
this terribly misguided motion.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond. The awareness of the sexually
transmitted disease epidemic is one of the things that I think that I
have brought to this body. It was denied, obscured and covered up over
the last 6 years. The fact is, as a postcoital morning-after pill,
administration does nothing to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.
The other thing is the gentlewoman who just talked has been against
informing people of the fact that a condom does not prevent someone
from getting the largest incurable, sexually transmitted disease that
we have, that will infect 6 million people this year. So if we want to
talk accurately about the medical facts, I will; but this issue is when
a child at school cannot get an aspirin without a parent being
involved, but we can give them a prescription pill that will have a
long-term impact on them. I think we need to have a full and fair
discussion on that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I support this motion. As a mother and a
grandmother, I would be furious, literally furious, if my child were
given this pill because I as a mother have to be notified if my child
is given an aspirin. So it really upsets me that this decision is made
by other people and not by the parents.
There is very little risk involved in taking a simple aspirin, but
the morning-after pill does have several possible side effects. While I
do not support this as a means of emergency contraception, it is a
legal choice, and those who choose to do it should do it under the
supervision of a doctor.
Currently, any school that does receive Federal funds for family
planning is authorized to distribute the morning-after pill, and right
now 180 school clinics offer it. The most disturbing fact is that the
Federal laws and regulations overrule State parental consent and
notification laws so school nurses can distribute this pill without the
parents ever being involved.
[[Page H7820]]
I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion and vote to make sure
that parents have more rights over their children than the Federal
Government.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. OBEY. 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, I rise in strong opposition to the Coburn
motion to instruct. It is no secret that many who support this motion
would not only take contraception from schools but would also remove
the option from all health clinics. So to say that school health
services are not needed is just another anti-choice action.
We know that numbers of teenagers across the country rely on school-
based health clinics for their health services and for health care
information. Local decision-makers and community representatives, those
who know their teenagers' health needs, not the Federal Government,
should have the right to decide the services their school health
clinics will offer. These individuals are elected by the local
constituencies. These schools will tell their school districts what
they want. Local decision-makers are the ones who know the needs of
their teenagers. They deserve the right to address those needs.
Allowing access to emergency contraceptive care gives teens the
ability to act responsibly; act before they become pregnant so that
they do not become pregnant. Let us help teens prevent unintended
pregnancies. Let us give our local schools and local health clinics the
right to decide for their communities.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Coburn motion to instruct.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Coburn motion
to instruct conferees. Frankly, I do not know how any Member could
disagree with this motion that simply prohibits the distribution of the
morning-after pill at schools. This is a pill that can cause an early
abortion. So our kids can go to school, be given an abortion pill
without their parents' consent. Well, unbeknownst to most parents, this
is happening in at least 180 schools across America.
Why is this so surprising to parents? Because parents are required to
sign a note or permission slip for everything. If their daughter needs
an aspirin, the parent writes a note; if she needs an allergy shot,
another note; cold medicine, a note from home; insulin, parental
permission; penicillin, more permission; Ritalin even more permission.
Then logically our daughters should not be given something as
potentially harmful as the morning-after pill at school.
This is a pill that can have side effects such as risks of developing
blood clots, heart attacks, strokes, cardiovascular disease. Obviously,
one should not just be able to go to a school nurse to get it. The
Coburn motion is a logical protection for our daughters and for the
right, as parents, to help make important health decisions for them.
Some will argue that our daughters need the morning-after pill in
schools if they have been raped or abused. If something as tragic as
rape or abuse has violated a young girl, schools are required by law to
report this to the authorities. Then proper care can be given to them
in a hospital, not at their school.
I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is not
abortion and it is not RU-486. It is a high dose of oral
contraceptives. We are talking about contraceptives here. School-based
clinics provide health care professionals an ideal opportunity to
counsel teens about the importance of delaying sexual activity and the
risks of unprotected sex.
I would hope, we would all hope, that all girls would consult their
parents if there has been a terrible mistake made; but unfortunately
that communication does not happen in every family. Would we not want
then to prevent an unwanted pregnancy and to prevent perhaps even an
unwanted abortion? Certainly many State and local governments want to
give their school-based professionals that option.
I always thought that this Congress was for local control. It seems
to me we are for local control if it is our views but not the other
guy's views. I do not think that is right. Let our local governments
decide whether they want their school-based professionals to counsel
girls and to be able to give them these contraceptives. Vote no on this
motion to instruct.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there are 4,000 other places in the United States that
they can get these pills if they want them. We do not need it in the
school. It amazes me that our whole goal is to help somebody keep a lie
in our school-based clinics when we use a morning-after pill. The fact
is there is a lot of freedom when young women go to their parents after
having made a mistake, and are encouraged to do that.
Know what? If we cannot do this in the school, that is what will
happen is the school nurse will encourage the young woman to talk with
her mother and if she has a father and say we need to talk with them
and get their permission to do this.
There are 4,000 other places funded by the Federal Government where
this can happen. What we are saying is this should not happen in
schools.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge Members to support the Coburn motion to
instruct conferees, to accept the Senate-passed amendment to protect
young girls from being given powerful abortion drugs at school.
I say again, we are talking about a school setting, and that is no
place. It is bad enough that this kind of action takes place in
abortion mills. To think that we would sanction in any way or shape or
form the prescribing of this kind of death to an unborn child at school
is outrageous.
It should be noted that these abortion drugs not only destroy a newly
created life, but they do indeed carry significant risks for the young
student.
{time} 1730
As the gentleman from Pennsylvania said a moment ago, with Preven, if
we look at the conditions, what the manufacturer itself says, and I
quote, ``These conditions can cause serious disability or even death.''
We are talking about this being given out in a high school or junior
high or elementary school setting. Our elementary and secondary schools
should be the last place, Mr. Speaker, the last place where legitimate
parental rights are trampled and usurped, especially when the health or
the life of their daughter is at risk. Our elementary and secondary
schools should be the place where life is affirmed and respect for life
is affirmed; again, the last place where abortion drugs are used.
Years ago, many of us warned that school-based clinics would be
misused to facilitate abortions for minors, especially by way of
referrals to abortion mills. We know that is going on. Planned
Parenthood alone does over 200,000 abortions in its own clinics each
and every year, many of them by referrals from schools. But now we know
that at least 180 schools across the country offer abortion drugs at
their school-based clinics. That is outrageous for parents and for
their daughters.
Mr. Speaker, we need to speak up loud and clear. Support the
gentleman's very, very smart and wise motion.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Camp).
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I think that schools are an inappropriate place to
dispense morning-after pills, so I rise in support of the Coburn motion
to instruct. I think more importantly, not only current law allows this
to be done without parent's consent, this is done without parent's
knowledge. I think to have in place a law that says, all parents are
[[Page H7821]]
bad parents. If parents know that their daughter is expecting a child,
that would be bad for their daughter. I think we definitely need to
make this change, and I think that is probably why a majority of the
Senators supported this change when this issue came up in the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the motion to instruct is a start, because
parents should be the first to know if their daughter is pregnant, not
the last. There are so many things parents should and would want to do,
and I do not think we can have in Federal law a situation where we just
assume the worst about every parent in this country. That is why I
strongly support this motion to instruct, and I urge everyone to vote
for it.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said over and over again here that this is a
question of parental consent. I do not see any of that in this. This
simply prohibits the distribution of these contraceptives on school
promises. It does not say that if the parent consents, you can do it.
It says, you cannot do it under any circumstances. So the whole issue
of parental consent is not contained in this motion to instruct; it has
nothing to do with this motion to instruct whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
(Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the Coburn motion to
instruct conferees.
Mr. Speaker, school-based health centers are partnerships. They are
partnerships within a community, and they are organizations in which
school personnel, parents, community leaders, health professionals set
policy governing what health care is available and under what
circumstances. Mr. Speaker, 94 percent of school-based health centers
require parental consent forms before a student can be seen. Two out of
every three allow parents to choose which services their child cannot
receive.
Those centers in which children have most access on their own are
located in those communities where teen pregnancies are the highest,
and they are the communities where supervision of these children,
support for these children, community options for these children,
public education for these children is frankly the worst. There are
children in our communities who never see their parents for days, and
who are basically on their own. There are also lots of young women in
high schools who are really actually the victims of what we would now
call date rape. But nobody has talked to them about how to say no.
Nobody has educated them about how to prevent pregnancy. So we are
saying that they should have, through their high school clinics, if the
community board has determined that this is appropriate, they should
have access to a morning after pill or emergency contraception. This
kind of contraception is only a high dosage of birth control pills, the
same kind of pills that millions of Americans take every day. This is
not RU486. This is just a high dosage of normal contraceptive pills.
If a woman is already pregnant, the emergency pill has no effect on
her pregnancy. But if a young person takes this within 72 hours of
unprotected sex, date rape, rape, which is sometimes the case and more
often than we actually like to acknowledge, or is the victim of incest,
she can actually prevent herself from being pregnant.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why my colleagues who oppose
abortion, although I do understand why they oppose abortion, but I do
not understand why they are so opposed to preventing pregnancy,
particularly for young girls who are not going to be able to support
this child economically and are almost by definition unready to support
this child emotionally.
My concern for the children of America is that they be born into
stable, loving families that can give them the emotional and economic
support and guidance over decades that children need. I can understand
the difference of opinion in our Nation about how to manage abortion or
what role abortion should play. But this, frankly, has nothing to do
with abortion at all. It has everything to do with preventing
pregnancy; it has everything to do with communities, health
professionals, parents, educators, merely giving young women the
knowledge and the tools and the power to prevent pregnancy.
Now, is it wise for young women to be intimate sexually when they are
in high school? I would tell them no, because on a peer development
basis, you are transferring power to this young man that frankly women
should not transfer because they get more into the web. I mean, I could
go on and on. I tell high school kids this. I tell kids all the reasons
why being sexually intimate prematurely is not a good idea, how it
disempowers them, how it limits their ability to develop and gain
control over their abilities, their future, their hopes and their
dreams.
However, by the same token, I want those young women who nobody told
that to, I want those young women who had nobody advising them and
helping them to at least know and understand what their choices are for
responsible action. Frankly, I think it is more responsible for a young
woman who has either been the victim of date rape, been the victim of
rape, how many of these young people are the victims of incest, we do
not know, but we are cavalier, cavalier about denying them access to a
contraceptive that simply prevents implantation. It prevents pregnancy.
That is a good thing. If you cannot economically and emotionally
support a child, frankly, it is wise and responsible not to have one.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's motion,
because this House has no business passing this provision.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As somebody who has delivered 3,500 babies and who has cared for every
complication of pregnancy, I want to clear up the medical facts. A
pregnancy, regardless of when Planned Parenthood says it occurs, occurs
when a sperm and an egg unite. Because of where it is located, they
have arbitrarily picked to say that is not a pregnancy is the biggest
misstatement that I have heard.
Number two is we are talking about high dose oral contraceptives. We
are not talking about a small dose. The reason that we have many
dosages of pills today is because the risks associated with the high
doses were so great that they caused major complications for women.
Now, to do morning after pills, we are reverting back to levels of
hormones that we have not seen in 20 years in this country in single
doses. That raises significant complications for these young women.
The final thing that I would say is if this fails to work, which 25
percent of the time it fails to prevent the pregnancy, there is a
concept known as limb reduction deficits, and if we look that up, what
we find is babies born without hands, without fingers, without ears,
without toes, and without their limbs. That is one of the causative
factors from high-dose oral contraceptives at the formative stage of an
early fetus. So medically, what was just stated is inaccurate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this motion to
instruct conferees offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
my friend.
Mr. Speaker, public schools should not use our taxpayer dollars to
distribute the morning after pill to the children of this Nation. This
is serious business. We are talking about whether or not the schools of
America hand out emergency contraceptives to the children of America.
There are many factors in play here, but I fundamentally believe that
it gets back to what schools are supposed to be about.
Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked, schools are supposed to be
about education. This is their stated purpose, and I think we should
all agree that schools have a lot of work to do in that area just to
get our children educated.
It is unimaginable to me what I just heard on this House floor, that
it has been suggested that a girl who is date raped or suffered from
incest should go to school the next morning to get a pill to make sure
she is not pregnant, instead of being with her parents in a hospital
with police and counselors
[[Page H7822]]
that could help her. That is where this type of idea leads when we
operate in secrecy from parents. Some would say that schools cannot
teach if kids are worrying about life's outside pressure. Well, that
may be true, but I believe that if schools were really focused on
education and teaching, some of life's worries and outside pressures
might fade away.
Studies have shown that high educational expectations and goals keep
kids focused on their future and their education, and they are not so
easily sidetracked. Like it or not, when schools pass out emergency
contraceptives, it sends a signal to kids. It says, there is no need to
talk to your parents or involve them in decisions which are of immense
importance to your physical and emotional well-being. It also says that
schools will help students bypass their parents and help make life-
changing decisions for them. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this is not
what our schools are supposed to be about. I think kids, parents and
folks all across this Nation know it. Schools are supposed to be about
reading, writing, arithmetic and educational experience, not social
projects funded with taxpayer funds which bypass parents and harm
children.
It seems to me that it is not okay for a child to even sneeze in
class without a parent's permission, and rightly so, you need parental
permission to go on field trips and for a variety of other reasons. You
often need parental permission just to take an aspirin. Yet, providing
emergency contraception is of more serious medical consequences and
parents are specifically not involved.
The Congressional Research Service looked into the prevalence of
providing emergency contraceptives in school-based clinics and they
found at least 180 schools across the country already are handing out
emergency morning after pills in their clinics. This is just part of
their sample.
Again, Mr. Speaker, schools should be about education, teaching, and
learning. Let us keep the focus there. I urge my colleagues to support
this motion to instruct conferees.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1745
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, in a former life, I had a
Ph.D. I guess I still have it. Coming here does not remove that. I
taught medical school. I taught nursing students. I have about 100
papers in the scientific literature. So I know something about the
process that we are talking about today.
We also have 10 children in our family and 11 grandchildren and one
great grandchild. And I will tell my colleagues from the perspective of
a professor, a teacher, a parent, a grandparent and a great
grandparent, that I think this policy of using taxpayer money to fund
the morning after pill without parental consent is obscene and insane.
My colleagues should just stop to think about this. A child in school
cannot get an aspirin without parental consent, and yet this
legislation, this legislation that we are talking about, that we hope
to somehow modify with this amendment, would permit the school, without
the parents' knowledge, without parents' consent, with taxpayer money,
to give a serious medication to a student which will terminate a life.
I say again: As a professor, as a father, as a grandfather, as a
concerned citizen of this country, this is obscene and insane. Support,
please, the Coburn amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney).
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Here we go again. Although this session is about to wrap up, the
attacks on reproductive health care keep coming. Today, we have a
motion that strips away local control over school-based health clinics.
My dear friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle
constantly talk about the importance of local control. These clinics
are currently run by communities, and they are not asking for
interference by the Federal Government. But this motion steps in and
prohibits school-based health clinics from dispensing emergency
contraception.
What we are talking about is not an abortion pill. What we are
talking about is a contraception pill that a young woman can take the
morning after an evening where she may have had an emergency situation,
such as rape or incest. Why should Congress make this decision for
every single community and every single school and every single child?
If my colleagues believe in local control, vote ``no,'' and for many
other reasons.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Chair would ask Members to
heed the gavel.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on my side. I
would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 2
minutes for him to use on his side if he would like.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, emergency contraception has been
portrayed as equal to abortion on this floor. Let us set the record
straight. Emergency contraception is oral contraceptive used at higher
doses.
This is oral contraception, taken once a day, prescribed by a health
professional. And this is emergency contraception, taken within 72
hours of unprotected intercourse. Emergency contraception is not
abortion. Same drug, same formulation, higher dose, one time. Passes
through the system in a couple of hours.
Both oral contraceptives and emergency contraception work the same
way: They prevent pregnancy. If a woman is pregnant, neither oral
contraceptives nor emergency contraception will disrupt that pregnancy.
Let me repeat: If a woman is pregnant, neither oral contraceptives nor
emergency contraception will disrupt that pregnancy.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Coburn motion.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this issue of health care in school-based
clinics was already dealt with by the conference and it was rejected.
This motion would deny Federal funding to any school-based clinic that
provides emergency contraception.
Emergency contraception is not abortion. It cannot terminate a
pregnancy. It prevents pregnancy in critical hours after unprotected
sex. Emergency contraceptive in a school-based clinic is prescribed
only by a doctor to young people seeking to act responsibly to prevent
unintended pregnancy.
School-based health clinics are different across this country. They
have been set up with the input of local officials, school personnel,
parents and students. All of these interested parties participate in
the decisions about what services they believe are appropriate and how
the clinics will be run. Let us leave these decisions to the
communities and to the local officials who are involved.
As I said, this conference has already agreed to reject this
proposal. It is wrongheaded and I urge my colleagues in the full House
to reject this motion.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Porter) has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, across the river about 10 years
ago, when I was mayor, we set up a school-based health clinic. It was
very controversial and difficult to do. But now that it has been set
up, it has saved countless lives. It has helped teenagers to act more
responsibly.
[[Page H7823]]
Ultimately, the community concluded that while it would be wonderful
if we could convince teenagers never to have sex, if we could eliminate
unintended pregnancies, unwed pregnancies, the reality is that we have
to deal with human nature. We have to improve the lives of people. We
decided that as a community, which is the way that these issues should
be decided, where people can accept the accountability for decisions
that they make for the people they serve directly.
I do not think we are particularly successful in trying to mandate
morals. We have an opportunity now for professional people, school
health nurses, generally, to be able to prescribe a way in which an
abortion is not affected; whereas we can prevent pregnancy by providing
pills that ensure that women can take control of their lives.
Through our schools and other community institutions, we can help
them become more responsible over their future, and we will not see as
many children being aborted or being born into unwed situations where
they suffer. We do not; they do. Let us not make them suffer; let us
defeat this instruction.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds the House again that he
requested that Members honor the gavel.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from a letter from the
National Assembly on School-Based Health Care.
``School-based health care centers represent a partnership between
community health care organizations, such as local hospitals, health
centers and public health departments, school systems and parents. The
programs are designed by the community. The scope of service, including
reproductive health, is determined by what health care providers,
school officials, parents, and other community members feel is
necessary to combat health-compromising behaviors and inadequate and
unaffordable access to competent and caring physical and mental health
services for school-aged children. The ability to provide these
services with public family planning and primary care resources is
vital to these few programs. Their ability to offer adolescents needed
reproductive health care should not be constrained by Congress. This
decision should remain one of local control and oversight.''
And that letter is signed by John Schlitt, Executive Director of the
National Assembly on School-Based Health Care, someone certainly to
whom we should listen before we take away the right of the parents and
the health providers in a community to set up such a clinic.
Mr. Speaker, I am providing the full letter for the Record, as
follows:
National Assembly
On School-Based Health Care,
September 18, 2000.
Hon. Nita M. Lowey,
U.S. House of Representatives, 2421 Rayburn HOB, Washington,
DC.
Dear Representative Lowey: I understand the Helms amendment
to the Labor/HHS appropriations bill, which was defeated in
conference last month, is resurfacing through a motion by
Congressman Coburn to instruct the conferees. I urge you to
reject the motion and speak in its opposition.
The National Assembly on School-Based Health Care, which
represents the nearly 1200 school health centers across the
country, opposes the Helms amendment to the Labor-HHS
appropriations bill (S. 6094). The amendment would prohibit
the use of federal funds from Section 330 and Title X of the
Public Health Services Act, as well as Titles V and XIX of
the Social Security Act, to support the distribution of, or
prescription for, the emergency contraceptive pill on the
premises of elementary and secondary schools.
School-based health centers represent a partnership between
community health care organizations (such as local hospitals,
health centers and public health departments), school
systems, and parents. These programs are designed by the
community. The scope of services, including reproductive
health, is determined by what health providers, school
officials, parents, and other community members feel is
necessary to combat health compromising behaviors and
inadequate and unaffordable access to competent and caring
physical and mental health services for school-aged children
and adolescents.
Three in four school-based health centers are prohibited by
state and/or local policy from prescribing and dispensing
birth control on site. In a very small number of communities,
school boards and school health advisory groups, which
include parents, have made the decision to offer birth
control on site because of troubling teen pregnancy and
sexually transmitted disease rates.
The ability to provide these services with public family
planning and primary care resources is vital to these few
programs. Their ability to offer adolescents needed
reproductive health care should not be constrained by
Congress. The decision should remain one of local control and
oversight.
Thank you for supporting community decision-making.
Sincerely,
John Schlitt,
Executive Director.
(From the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care--Sept. 2000)
School-Based Health Centers and Family Planning
What is a school-based health center, and how is it different from a
school nurse?
School-based health centers are partnerships between
community health care organizations, typically a health
department, primary care center or hospital, and a school.
The services provided in the health center are similar to
that which is delivered in standard medical clinics:
assessment and screenings, immunizations, diagnostic and
treatment services laboratory, well child health supervision,
etc. There are an estimated 1200 of these unique health
centers in schools across the country.
Is family planning included in the scope of services?
While the majority of health centers located in middle and
high schools provide services such as pregnancy testing
(85%), HIV counseling (77%), and STD testing and treatment
(73%), services related to birth control are most often
contained to counseling. Three in four school-based health
centers are prohibited by state law or school policy from
dispensing contraception on site.
Do parents provide consent for access to school-based health centers?
Nearly all (94%) school-based health centers require signed
parental consent forms before a student can be seen. Two-
thirds of school-based health centers allow parents the
option of selecting specific services that their child cannot
receive.
Do school-based health centers practice within accordance of state laws
regarding minors' access to sensitive services?
One-third of health centers reported to the National
Assembly on School-Based Health Care that adolescents may be
seen for family planning related services (except
contraceptive services where prohibited) without parental
consent. This policy is often communicated to the parent
through the consent process so that the right of adolescents
to confidential services is understood.
Do school-based health centers dispense the morning after pill?
In a survey of school-based health centers, 16% of centers
serving adolescents reported that emergency contraception is
available on site. This represents approximately 130 school-
based health centers, or one-fifth of one percent of schools
in this nation.
Do federal dollars support school-based health centers?
Federal financial support for school-based health centers
comes through Medicaid reimbursement, public health grants
through Title V of the Social Security Act, and grants made
by the Bureau of Primary Health Care under its Healthy
Schools, Healthy Communities initiative.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
3 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has no
time remaining, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has 11
minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the very troubling motion
to instruct of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), which would
direct, as my colleagues know, the Labor-HHS conferees to revive the
already-rejected ban on emergency contraception in school-based health
clinics.
In July, the House-Senate conference rejected this harmful proposal
because it endangers teenagers' health and undermines the national
effort to reduce unintended teen pregnancies. This ban confuses
emergency contraception with abortion. And its attempt to ban abortion
pills would instead ban emergency contraception.
I think it is important for our colleagues to understand the
difference. ECPs, emergency contraception pills, which are FDA approved
ordinary birth control pills, do not cause abortion. They inhibit
ovulation, fertilization, or implantation before pregnancy occurs.
School-based health centers provide a private, safe place for teens
to access health care services, including contraception and related
services. Certainly
[[Page H7824]]
we would hope that children would engage in abstinence, but they do not
always, and that is why I join the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists in opposing the Coburn motion.
{time} 1800
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, this motion is going to pass by a large vote. I
understand that. When the vote comes, I personally am going to vote
``present.''
As some Members have noticed from time to time, I on numerous
occasions have voted ``present'' as a matter of protest in order to
suggest that the House is dealing with an issue which I believe ought
to be dealt with on another level of government. Often that has been
the District of Columbia with respect to its own affairs, and on
occasion it has been other local units of government. This is another
such occasion.
I simply do not think that the same rules apply in a district which
is very largely composed of white, middle-class, fairly prosperous,
well-knit families and then, in contrast to other districts where you
have huge amounts of poverty, childhood neglect, loosely knit families,
areas such as the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) described
where children literally often do not see their parents for days at a
time.
And so I think that this matter is best left to local school
officials because they are the people on the frontlines trying to weigh
the conflicting equities that they so often face not just in schools
but in police work and in a number of other areas, as well.
Notice of Intention to Offer Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 4577,
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001
Mr. OBEY. If this motion passes, I want to note, Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to clause 7(c) of House rule XXII, I hereby notify the House
of my intention tomorrow to offer the following Motion to Instruct
House conferees on H.R. 4577, a bill making appropriations for fiscal
year 2001 for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education:
I move that the managers on the part of the House at the
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
bill, H.R. 4577, be instructed to insist on the highest
funding level possible for the Department of Education; and
to insist on disagreeing with provisions in the Senate
amendment which denies the press the President's request for
dedicated resources to reduce class sizes in the early grades
and for local school construction and, instead, broadly
expands the Title VI Education Block Grant with limited
accountability in the use of funds.
If we are going to start providing motions to instruct at this late
date in the session, then I am going to have a number of motions which
I think are germane to the operations of the committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The notice of the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will appear in the Record.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in spite of what the Members of this body might think,
the intention of this motion to instruct was not to create havoc in the
process as we attempt to go home.
I want to describe my medical practice to all of my colleagues for a
minute so they have a perspective. I just heard the ``white, middle-
class'' statement; and I think it is very important. Most of my
patients are minorities. Most of them only have one parent. And let me
tell my colleagues, every one of those parents want to know what is
going on with their kids in school. And the assumption, the racial
implication that if they happen to be a single mom and they have a
child that gets in trouble that they do not want to know as much as
everybody else is absurd and wrong and implies an absolute lack of
knowledge about what is going on in this country with that valuable
segment of our population. So I want to set that aside.
The other thing is I want to tell my colleagues a story, one of the
reasons I offered this amendment. I was in a town hall meeting in the
southeast portion of my district. A 38-year-old father came in, and I
have never seen anybody so mad in my life. I was the object of his
rage, because his 12-year-old daughter had just shown him what she had
been given at a clinic, 12 years old, no knowledge. She was given
Preven. In case she needed it at some future time, she was given a bag
of condoms. She was given noxonol nine. And she was given oral
contraceptives. No exam, no instruction sheet on how to use them, but
she was given them.
Mr. Speaker, what the father was mad about is that somebody would
dare be able to invade on the rights of his child and her health care
without him knowing about it. And in front of 50 people, he stood there
balling, to say what has happened to our country that parents are last?
We heard about local control. What about parent control? What about
putting the parents back in charge?
We cannot take an aspirin at a school without a permission slip. If
their child has an antibiotic, they have to have permission to give
that child his antibiotic at the school. We are so wrong-headed and so
out of sync in terms of the priorities for our children in this country
it is not a wonder that we are having difficulty with these issues.
The third point I want to make: we have had title X clinics for 25
years in this country. We have been teaching safe sex for 25 years. We
are the highest nation in the world in sexually transmitted diseases.
Nobody comes close to us. We will have 15 million new cases of sexually
transmitted disease this year of which 9 million are incurable, 9
million in which the methods that we teach at our title X safe-sex
clinics will not protect our children from. But we are going to dig our
heads in the sand, and we are going to ignore it.
The number one cause of cervical cancer is one of them. We now know
that one of those is involved with prostate cancer, the number two
cancer with men. But we are going to ignore that. We are going to keep
doing the same thing. We are going to dumb down to the level of the
lowest possible explanation and rationalize that that is the way to
treat our children.
It is not good enough. No wonder our kids are failing. We are not
expecting enough of them. We are looking the wrong direction.
There is no reason for a parent never to be involved unless incest is
involved. And then, in every State in this country, it is a law that
they have to notify the authorities. Otherwise they go to jail if they
do not notify the authorities.
This has nothing to do with school-based clinics. This has everything
to do with parents, re-empowering parents.
The final point that I would make that my colleagues consider is that
every one of us has told a lie; and when we finally get past that lie
and tell the truth, every one of us feels good about it. When we
confess that lie, there is a great feeling. It is liberating. We have
told the truth, that burden we are carrying.
When we enable our children to be deceptive, we lessen their
potential for the future. We should not be involved in that. We should
be enabling them to reconcile with their parents, not become deceptive
partners in alienating the children from their parents.
For goodness sakes, let us really think about children.
I know we are going to have the debate on abortion and pro-life; but
as we solve this problem, let us empower parents to do the right thing,
let us encourage the positive and discourage the negative, let us go
for reconciliation between children and parents.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express to my colleagues my
great concern with this motion to instruct conferees.
First, it should be clear that this motion is about contraception,
not abortion. Like other contraceptives, emergency contraception can
prevent--but not terminate--a pregnancy. Access to contraception can be
a vital part of local efforts to reduce unintended pregnancy and reduce
the number of abortions--a goal shared by members on both sides of the
aisle.
Second, this motion restricts the decision of local leaders. School-
based clinics vary greatly across the country, and the services that
they provide reflect community standards, reflected by local advisory
boards made up of parents, young adults, community representatives and
youth family organizations.
Emergency contraception may not be an appropriate or advisable option
for many schoolbased clinics. It may be, however, both necessary and
appropriate for some clinics and some communities. For many low-income,
uninsured students, school-based health clinics provide their only
access to necessary
[[Page H7825]]
health care. Restricting contraceptive options only for these low-
income students is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed to say that our country has more unintended
teen pregnancies than any other industrialized country in the world. I
challenge my colleagues to reject election-year politics and work with
me toward policies that prevent unintended pregnancies before the
morning after.
As for me, I will redouble my efforts to help our kids and their
parents get the information they need about the consequences and costs
of unintended pregnancy and the benefits of abstinence, good
reproductive health and smart choices.
Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to
instruct conferees. It is not the business of the federal government to
provide any form of birth control to minors. Furthermore, to do this
without parental consent and involvement is especially egregious.
When Senator Helms asked the Congressional Research Service to
investigate whether ``Morning-After'' pills were distributed to minors
at school clinics, CRS found that 180 schools did precisely this.
Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable, violative of parental rights, and
immoral.
It is always instructive to closely examine the rhetoric of the pro-
abortion movement. And make no mistake, the pro-abortion movement
supports providing the ``Morning-After'' pill to minors through school
based clinics.
So, lets examine their rhetoric. The ``Morning-After'' pill often can
result in causing an abortion of a human child in its earliest stages.
Yet, the pro-abortion side will consistently argue that this is not an
abortion. They will claim that this is just normal birth control. What
hogwash.
Anyone can tell you that ``birth control'' occurs before a baby is
conceived. Otherwise we would happily call abortion ``birth control.''
It's not. It never has been. And, it never will be.
Mr. Speaker, our Founders saw fit to say that government exists to
secure ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'' for its
citizens. Let us not execute the smallest of our citizens by providing
these misnamed abortifacient pills to our minors.
Vote ``yes'' on the motion to instruct conferees.
Mr. COBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wilson). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COBURN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 250,
nays 170, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 481]
YEAS--250
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neal
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
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
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--170
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kolbe
Kuykendall
Lantos
Larson
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
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
Minge
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Porter
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Obey
NOT VOTING--12
Campbell
Dooley
Franks (NJ)
Klink
Lazio
McCollum
McIntosh
McNulty
Murtha
Nethercutt
Vento
Wise
{time} 1832
Ms. RIVERS, Mr. GIBBONS, and Mr. DINGELL changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. POMEROY and Mrs. FOWLER changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________