[Page: H6193] 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged motion. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Emerson). The Clerk will report the motion. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

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

(For veto message, see proceedings of the House of October 21, 1997 at page H8891.) 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) is recognized for 1 hour. 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

                                [TIME: 1030] 

Madam Speaker, today for a second time the House considers a presidential veto of bipartisan 
legislation banning partial-birth abortion. In the last Congress, although the House overrode 
President Clinton's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995, the veto was sustained in the 
other body. Shortly after the current Congress convened, new legislation to ban partial-birth abortion 
was introduced. In due course, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997 was passed by both 
Houses. President Clinton's veto of that legislation is before the House today. 

Just 2 weeks ago, the Members of this House and the American people received a stark reminder 
about the reality of partial-birth abortion. We read in press reports of a tiny baby in Phoenix, 
Arizona, who was almost killed by a partial-birth abortion. The baby girl survived with a fractured 
skull and deep lacerations on her face. She survived only because the abortionist stopped the 
procedure when it became obvious that she was at 9 months and not 5 1/2 months, as had originally 
been thought. The abortionist stopped, but we know, nevertheless, that partial-birth abortions are 
performed from the fifth month through the ninth month of pregnancy, and that a baby feels 
excruciating pain during a partial-birth abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Miraculously, in this case, 
a little girl who was marked for destruction is alive today and a Texas couple have come forward to 
adopt her. 

Of course, we know that surviving an attempted partial-birth abortion is very much the exception. 
Tragically, most of the babies singled out for partial-birth abortion have their lives brutally snatched 
away, just within inches from being fully born. 

Now, despite the campaign of deception waged by the abortion industry to cover up the facts about 
partial-birth abortion, we know that this gruesome procedure is performed thousands of times a 
year. We know that in the overwhelming majority of cases, it is performed on the healthy mother, 
mothers of healthy babies. 

We know that the abortion industry that claimed that partial-birth abortion is a rare procedure used 
only in extreme cases was a lie all along. We know this because the facts are undeniable and 
because representatives of the abortion industry have themselves ultimately admitted that the industry 
have been lying all along. 

With their campaign of deception exposed, with the lies revealed in the full light of day, what do the 
advocates of partial-birth abortion say now? 

They say that partial-birth abortion is necessary to protect the health of women. They say that 
partial-birth abortion must be preserved as an option for abortionists to use. They say that it is a 
necessary medical procedure. These claims, like all their other claims about partial-birth abortion, 
are false, untrue from start to finish. 

When we hear the claims of the defenders of partial-birth abortion, I ask the Members of the House 
to consider what partial-birth abortion is. Look at what this brutal procedure actually involves. This 
is partial-birth abortion: 

Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the live baby's leg with forceps. Look at this procedure. 

The baby's leg in the next step is pulled out into the birth canal. 

The abortionist then delivers the living baby's entire body, except for the head, which is deliberately 
kept lodged just within the uterus. 

Then, in the final step of this horrible procedure, the abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. 
The scissors are opened to enlarge the hole. 

Then, after the baby has been killed, the scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The 
child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse, and the delivery of the dead child is 
completed. This is the final step. This is what we see at the conclusion of every partial-birth abortion. 

Now, I have described this procedure many times. I wince every time I describe it. It is a horrible 
thing to describe; it is a horrible thing to contemplate. And to the Members of this House who 
support partial-birth abortion, I would appeal to them, I would appeal to them to look at what is 
happening whenever a partial-birth abortion is performed. 

Now, let me ask my colleagues, how is this horrific procedure calculated to protect the health of the 
mother? That claim simply makes no sense. It is absurd to claim that killing a partially-delivered child 
in the birth canal is necessary to protect the mother's health. How does this death blow delivered by 
the scissors into the tiny baby's skull help preserve the health of the mother? 

Madam Speaker, listen, listen to what Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education, 
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mt. Sinai Hospital says, and I quote her: 

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

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

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

I would appeal to my colleagues to also listen to the American Medical Association on this issue, 
which, despite its strong support for abortion rights, has supported this legislation to ban partial-birth 
abortion. The American Medical Association itself recognizes that partial-birth abortion is not a 
legitimate medical procedure. 

The health argument used by President Clinton and the other defenders of partial-birth abortion is 
nothing more than a pretense. It is a cloak for the extremist position that abortion for any reason at 
any stage of pregnancy, and using any procedure imaginable should receive the absolute protection 
of the law of the land. 

I would appeal to my colleagues to reject this extremist position, listen to the voice of reason, cut 
through all the lies and deception, base your vote on the truth, think of the babies who are subjected 
to this horrible practice. If my colleagues do so, they will vote to override the President's veto. 

This House should, once again, reject the President's extremist position in support of partial-birth 
abortion, and move forward to override his veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. 

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Madam Speaker, the motion before us is to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from further 
consideration of the bill. Madam Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary has not considered the bill 
at all. It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary several months ago. The thing that the 
Committee on the Judiciary really ought to consider, for example, is: is the bill constitutional or not? 

This bill is not about whether or not a decision on abortion should be made; the question is which 
procedure ought to be used, and there are cases, a long line of cases that say directly that we cannot 
intervene and make the decision for the physician and the mother as to which procedure ought to be 
used. The Committee on the Judiciary ought to consider those decisions. 

We have been asked now to discharge them from further consideration of the bill. Madam 
Chairman, the Roe versus Wade decision, the Casey versus Planned Parenthood and other cases 
have shown that we cannot intervene in this decision. 

We have heard the description of a case in Arizona. This bill would not have an effect on that 
because the decision for the abortion is made and then one decides on the procedure. If one cannot 
use this procedure, then one would use another procedure. The decision for the abortion is a 
separate decision. 

We ought to oppose the motion to discharge, and instead, require the Committee on the Judiciary to 
do its job, determine whether or not the bill is constitutional, which the supporters in committee last 
time it was considered acknowledged that it was not constitutional. We ought to fashion a 
constitutional bill, and there are many alternatives that we could have brought to the floor rather than 
this bill. 

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. 

                                [Page: H6194] 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick). 

Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to override the President's 
veto. As a mother and a grandmother of 7, this is an especially heartbreaking issue. 

My colleagues have just seen the graphic details. Suffice it to say, partial-birth abortion is a horrific 
way to end the life of a tiny 9-month-old baby. It has no place in a civilized society. 

This should not be a divisive issue. We are talking about killing, killing healthy babies. These are 
babies that have long been able to survive outside their mother's womb. 

Madam Speaker, most Americans are really shocked when they learn that this procedure is legal. It 
is closer to infanticide than to abortion. For most of us, this is a no-brainer. Today when the vote is 
called, we will see many pro-choice Members of Congress vote against the President's veto. 
Madam Speaker, after all, accidental gun deaths are a really big problem in this country, yes, but 
every year, far more children are killed by partial birth abortions than are killed in accidental 
shootings. 

By overriding the President's veto, we are going to stand up for the thousands of newborn children, 
those children who do not have a say in our political process. If we fail to do so, I fear that the 
House will condone infanticide in the name of preserving abortion rights. 

The choice is easy. Let us override the President's veto. 

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio). 

Mr. FAZIO of California. Madam Speaker, this bill, the subject of this debate, targets the most 
vulnerable women--women who want to be mothers, but who have found that something has gone 
terribly wrong with their health or with the fetus. None of us support late-term abortions for no 
reason, and yet supporters of this bill would have us believe that women come to this terrible and 
tragic decision arbitrarily. They talk of procedures and ignore the tragedy impacting the lives of real 
people, real families, women who want to be mothers. 

So I urge my colleagues to sustain the President's veto today, and then go back and write a bill that 
matches the rhetoric that we hear but that takes into consideration the health and life of the mother, 
because that is consistent with Roe versus Wade, which certainly allows the States to act to ban 
third-term abortion. 

The procedures that we have discussed here are rare and they should be so. Only when no 
alternative exists should they be used, but to ban them without further recourse is callous in and of 
itself. 

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to target women and families when a pregnancy has 
turned to crisis and becomes a tragedy. I think we should let a woman, her doctor, her family make 
this terrible choice. This is not the role of government. I hope we will sustain the President's 
courageous decision to veto this bill, and if we fail, I know the Senate will. 

This is a terribly complex area in which to legislate. I fear we have made this more of a political 
debate and over looked the kind of in-depth analysis of the real situation that people caught in this 
terrible tragedy face. 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Roemer). 

Mr. ROEMER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues to vote to ban partial 
birth abortions. This is a moral blind spot that this Nation can no longer allow. It is gruesome, it is 
barbaric, and it is brutal. We have the opportunity today to ban this procedure with our vote to 
override the President's veto. 

Killing a baby as it is being born is simply an act of brutality. Our Constitution protects us from cruel 
and unusual punishment; I submit that partial-birth abortion is both. 

Now, last week I joined with some of my colleagues on both sides to provide the option of 
contraception in order to try to find ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies that too often result in 
abortion. Today I encourage my colleagues, women and men, Democrats and Republicans, pro-life 
and pro-choice Members, to come together and ban this procedure today. 

                                [TIME: 1045] 

I urge support for this. I would encourage my colleagues to come together today and ban this 
procedure. Not just today, not just for tomorrow, but well into the future. 

Join together, as we did last week with the strong support of both sides of the aisle, to try to do what 
we think is right. It is not oftentimes when we consider budgets and pot holes and hydrogen and 
space programs that we vote on life itself. This is one of those votes. I encourage bipartisan support 
for our position. 

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). 

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I am strongly opposed to late-term abortions. In fact, in 1987, 
as a member of the Texas Senate, I helped pass a law that is law today that is saving babies from 
late-term abortions. 

But, Madam Speaker, there is a huge difference between the bill that we passed that is law today in 
Texas, that is working, and the bill that was designed for maximum political sound bite impact that 
we are voting on today. 

The first difference, in Texas our goal was to save babies. That is why we outlawed all late-term 
abortion procedures. This bill, if Members look at it carefully beyond the 30-second sound bite and 
TV ad appeal of it, this bill still allows abortions to occur in America on the 29th day of the eighth 
month of pregnancy. 

The sponsor of this bill just a moment ago said we should be honest in this debate. Let the 
proponents of this bill be honest to the American people in saying that this bill, this bill will allow 
abortions in America at the eight month, 29th day. We did not think that was right in Texas, and that 
is why we wrote the law differently. I think the supporters of this bill ought to discuss that point. That 
is one reason, frankly, I think this bill should go back to committee for further consideration, rather 
than political debate here today. 

Second difference. In Texas, because we wanted to save babies and not make a political point, on a 
bipartisan basis we crafted a bill that would meet constitutional guidelines. This bill is clearly 
unconstitutional, one of the reasons the President vetoed it under the guidelines of Roe versus Wade 
and as has been established by Federal judges and courts across this country from one State to 
another. 

The third difference between the Texas law today and the bill we are debating today is in Texas we 
trusted women to make responsible choices in very rare tragic pregnancies. This bill does not trust 
women to make those responsible choices. 

Specifically, the Texas law said in those rare cases where a woman's health was seriously at risk or 
her fertility at risk, the incredibly difficult emotional decision about how to preserve the mother's 
ability to have children in the future should be a decision made by that woman and her doctor and 
her God, and not by politicians in Austin, Texas, or in Washington, D.C. 

Madam Speaker, in my personal opinion, if there is one frivolous late-term abortion using any 
procedure anywhere in America, that is one too many and we ought to stop it. But this bill does not 
do that. What this bill does is potentially, according to the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists, the experts in this field, this bill what it is really going to do is risk women's health and 
their ability to have children. 

Madam Speaker, we ought to send this bill back to committee and make a bill that works, not a bill 
that makes sound bites. 

                                [Page: H6195] 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. 
Chenoweth). 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for 
yielding me this time. 

Madam Speaker, I wanted to address a point by the previous speaker about the fact that the Texas 
law preserves the right of a woman to more children; that is a higher choice than right to the life of a 
matured child yet in its mother's womb. 

The fact we need to remember is that that baby who is being killed and delivered by the partial-birth 
abortion will not only not have a choice for its own fertility in the future, it will not even have a life, 
and that is what this bill is about, preserving life. 

Now, we preserve all kinds of things in this Nation, including things that may need to be utilized. But 
preserving life is our number one criteria and our duty as lawmakers. 

I rise in strong support of H.R. 1122, the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act. Last year, apologists for 
this abominable practice raised a fog of mendacity over the whole issue, but yet that today, that fog 
of mendacity has been pierced. There is greater understanding. 

Let the truth be known that thousands, thousands of partial-birth abortions are performed every year 
on mature children that are yet unborn. 

On June 30, for instance, of just this year, 1998, an Arizona abortionist stopped a partial-birth 
abortion right after he began it. The baby's skull was crushed and the baby was born with a crushed 
skull and facial lacerations. That was carried in the national news, this very disturbing news. But 
thank goodness that that doctor realized at that very critical moment that was a living being. That was 
a child, and that he was going to end that child's life. 

Even that doctor and everyone else can clearly see that this issue, Madam Speaker, that partial-birth 
abortion is murder. This procedure is medieval, and so is the logic of those who advocate and 
apologize for it. This debate is not about when life begins, for the infants targeted by this procedure 
are mature babies. 

Madam Speaker, as lawmakers, we do have our first responsibility to preserve life and preserve life 
of the most vulnerable kind, babies yet unborn in the mother's womb. 

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Madam Speaker, very briefly I would state that the bill does not prevent a single abortion. In fact, if 
this bill passes, women who have abortions may have to undergo sterilization and not be able to have 
children in the future, because this bill does not have a health exception. 

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, this is one of the most painful debates that this House has to 
face, but it does not compare with the decision facing parents, a medical decision that few have had 
to confront. 

For some families, the only hope of retaining a woman's ability to have children is at stake in this 
Congress. It has been a tenet of privacy and citizenship in the United States that the doctor-patient 
relationship is sacrosanct. And yet for the first time in the history of this Republic, over 200 years, 
this Congress is trying to outlaw a medical procedure and to determine whether it should be used or 
not. 

What is next? Last week the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) in what I thought was 
a very poignant moment, when some were trying to outlaw contraceptives said, `Is there no limit to 
where this Congress will go to insert itself into the most private decisions that human beings have to 
make?' 

Perhaps we can go further. Perhaps the next procedure we will outlaw here will be hysterectomy 
during childbearing years. I submit that some of the people in this House think that should be 
outlawed. 

But most importantly, I want to ask my colleagues and the American public to consider this issue: 
When confronted with a medical decision that could break a woman's heart and destroy her future 
chances to be a mother, who would she prefer to consult? Would she in that circumstance want to 
talk to her doctor, her family, or her spiritual advisor or, as Congress has determined, would she be 
just as satisfied to talk to her Member of Congress? 

Madam Speaker, I submit that we are no way qualified to make this decision and that on behalf of 
the parents who are confronted with this awful determination to be made, I pray we will not override 
this veto. 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would inquire concerning the amount of time 
remaining on each side. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Emerson). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) has 16 
1/2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 20 1/2 minutes remaining. 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette). 

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote against this 
ill-conceived and mean-spirited effort to override the President's veto of H.R. 1122. 

Let us consider what we have learned since the House last considered this so-called partial-birth 
abortion ban. Six of the nine States that have passed these laws using language from the Federal bill 
have had their laws enjoined by the courts. Moreover, 18 respected judges from a range of 
ideological viewpoints across the country have found that H.R. 1122 is so vague and overreaching 
that it could prevent legal abortions throughout pregnancy. 

Make no mistake about it, preventing legal abortions is exactly what the proponents of this bill 
intended. Their goal is not ultimately to ban a specific medical procedure, but it is ultimately to outlaw 
abortion altogether. 

Members should not just take my word for it, but should listen to the words of the Federal judges 
from across the political spectrum and across the country. Iowa District Judge Robert W. Pratt held 
that the partial-birth abortion law is, `unconstitutionally vague and unduly burdensome on a woman's 
constitutional right to an abortion.' 

Illinois Judge Charles P. Kocoras held that, `The statute, as written, has the potential effect of 
banning the most common and safest abortion procedures.' 

U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of Nebraska said, `A criminal law, especially one banning 
protected constitutional freedoms like abortion, that fails to give wordings or that allows arbitrary 
prosecution is `void for vagueness.' Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban is the epitome of such a 
law.' 

Now, the esteemed gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) said that he was glad, and I am glad too, 
that last week he voted to allow the free use of contraception. No one likes abortion. I abhor 
abortion. But abortion is what we need from time to time when pregnancies go tragically awry. In the 
meantime, we need contraception. 

Regrettably, almost 200 of our colleagues did not agree with the gentleman from Indiana, and they in 
fact would ban four of the five approved forms of contraception in this country. 

That is what this agenda item is about. This agenda item is not about saving healthy babies. This 
agenda item is about ultimately banning not only abortion, but a woman's right to birth control so that 
she can choose the direction of her own body. 

Madam Speaker, if this was such a critical problem in this country right now, why did we wait since 
October 1997 to override the President's veto? We could have saved, according to my colleagues 
on that side of the aisle, hundreds of healthy babies. No, this is not a critical health problem in this 
country. This is a political issue for the 1998 elections. 

                                [Page: H6196] 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Smith). 

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, 25 years after Roe v. Wade, I believe it is time for a 
serious reality check and a compassion check as well. 

Supreme Court imposed abortion-on-demand in America has claimed the lives of more than 36 
million boys and girls and, although grossly underreported, has resulted in death, injury, and 
emotional trauma to women. 

It is time to come to grips with the truth and to ask the question why we seem to care so little about 
a whole generation of babies lost. 

Abortion methods, Madam Speaker, are violence against children. Abortion methods dismember 
and chemically poison kids. There is absolutely nothing compassionate about dousing a baby with 
superconcentrated salt water or lethal injections into the baby's beating heart, or hacking the baby to 
pieces with surgical knives. 

                                [TIME: 1100] 

Why do so many of us live in denial concerning this pernicious violence against children? 

Today, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion lobby is asking the House to sustain a 
misguided veto so as to permit and empower abortionists to continue to murder children as they are 
being born. To legally sanction such an execution begs the question: Is there nothing the Congress or 
President will not embrace under the banner of `choice'? Are the lives of little girls and boys so 
cheap? 

Madam Speaker, earlier this month a 6-pound baby girl, `Baby Phoenix' as she is now called, was 
born with a skull fracture and lacerations on her face after an abortionist, Dr. John Biskind, 
unsuccessfully attempted to perform a partial-birth abortion on her 17-year-old mother. `Baby 
Phoenix' is the first known survivor of this brutal procedure. 

It has taken years, and the deaths of thousands of children and at least two women, who he left to 
bleed to death, but Dr. Biskind now will not be allowed to continue his murderous ways. This week 
the State medical board voted to suspend his license. The irony is that it is not the deaths he caused 
that brought the board's disfavor, but the fact that a baby whom he was trying to kill actually 
survived and was delivered alive. 

Madam Speaker, some on this floor, and in Dear Colleagues that have been sent out, suggest that 
the Hoyer-Greenwood proposal somehow will prohibit all late-term abortions. Nothing, I would say, 
is further from the truth. 

Lest any of us be deceived, the Hoyer-Greenwood bill places no restriction whatever on late term 
abortions. While it is not on the floor today but it is being referred to in this debate as an alternative, 
the plain meaning of the language places no restriction whatsoever, not even symbolic limitations, on 
partial-birth abortions performed before an individual baby can be proven to be viable; that is, 
definitely able to survive if born prematurely. The vast majority of partial-birth abortions are 
performed in the 5th and 6th months of pregnancy, when the baby's lung development is not quite 
sufficient or barely sufficient to allow independent survival. 

Second, even after the baby is demonstratively viable, the Hoyer-Greenwood bill would permit 
abortion by partial-birth abortion or any other method, if in the medical judgment of the attending 
physician, that is to say the abortionist, that the abortion is necessary to avert serious adverse health 
consequences to the woman. 

In a March 12, 1997 press conference in the House Radio-TV gallery, which was tape-recorded, 
my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), was asked directly what 
the word health means in his proposal. The gentleman responded. `It does include mental health. 
Yes, it does.' 

He then went on to explain that mental health would include psychological trauma. Thus, unless my 
colleagues believe that it should be permissible to kill a baby, even during the final 3 months of 
pregnancy, a premature infant, for reasons of mental health or psychological trauma, they should not 
support H.R. 1032. And if my colleagues believe that it should not be permissible to pull a living 
baby feet first into the birth canal, puncture her skull and remove her brain in the 5th and 6th months, 
please vote to override the President's veto. Support the motion to override the President's 
misguided veto. 

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood). 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and stand to 
oppose the motion to discharge. 

The previous speaker, my colleague from New Jersey, said it is time for a reality check and a 
compassion check. I think that is quite true. Let us start with the reality check. 

My friend from New Jersey just described abortion in horrific, horrible terms, as if that is what 
abortion is all about. In fact, it was just last week that the gentleman from New Jersey stood at this 
podium and could not tell us whether the birth control pill was abortion. In fact, he told us the IUD is 
abortion. The reality check is, and I will turn to this chart, the reality check is that this is when 
abortions occur in America: Overwhelmingly early in pregnancy. 

Now, let us have a compassion check. Who could vote against this bill after it has been described in 
such horrific terms? I am going to vote against this bill, and I will match my compassion ratings with 
anyone. Most of my career, before I went into politics, was as a social worker. I worked with 
handicapped children. I worked with abused children. I held them in my arms. I rescued them from 
danger. I loved them and I cared about them. I love and I care about my children. I love babies. 
That is not what this is about. 

This bill is based on a fraud, and the fraud is that this procedure is used frequently late in 
pregnancies. As this chart shows, 99 percent of all of the abortions in America occur prior to the 
20th week of gestation; the overwhelming majority, 89 percent, prior to 12 weeks; 99 1/2 percent 
of the abortions in America occur before the 22nd week; and 99.94 percent of abortions in America 
occur before the 24th week. 

The reason Americans are confused about this bill is because people have intentionally tried to 
confuse them with the notion that somehow women in their 7th, 8th and 9th month of pregnancies 
are having abortions. And they are not, except for the most extraordinary, extraordinary medical 
reasons, and reasons that require compassion from all of us. 

Now, to put to an end this debate about whether somehow in America women are getting late-term 
abortions after the 6th month for frivolous reasons, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Steny 
Hoyer) and I offered a substitute to this bill which would have banned this procedure and all 
procedures beyond viability, beyond the 24th week, except for the most extraordinary cases, where 
the health of the mother or the life of the mother is at risk. 

What saddens me is that we, my friends, my colleagues, are not spending our time on the floor of this 
body trying to prevent 99 percent of the abortions, trying to prevent unintended pregnancy, which 
we could do in so many ways in which we could agree: Using birth control, using education, helping 
define mentors for young ladies in situations where they do not have proper guidance in their lives, so 
they are not the victims of sexual predators way beyond their age engaging them in inappropriate 
sexual activities and impregnating them. 

This is where America's work needs to be done. It does not need to be done out beyond 99.94 
percent of the abortions in America. Because, in fact, those abortions are rare and done for the most 
extraordinary reasons and, again, reasons that require our compassion. 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. 

                                [Page: H6197] 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. 

Is it not true that the bill the gentleman has sponsored would give the abortionist unfettered discretion 
to determine when an abortion would be performed during the third trimester or post viability? 
Because the gentleman has an exception in there that says that the abortion can be performed if in 
the medical judgment of the attending physician, that is the abortionist, the abortionist believes it is 
necessary. Is that not in the gentleman's bill? 

Mr. GREENWOOD. Madam Speaker, it certainly is. It certainly is. And I know that the gentleman 
knows the facts, because he is a student of them, but anyone who knows the facts knows that that is 
not a loophole through which hundreds or dozens or scores of women would proceed. 

The fact of the matter is that under Roe versus Wade today doctors have the opportunity to allow 
late-term abortions for medical reasons. And the facts show indisputably that this is an exception that 
is not abused. We cannot find an abortionist in this country who will do a late-term abortion for 
frivolous reasons. 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay). 

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, this is amazing to me. This is a vote about common decency. This is 
a procedure that is gruesome, it is inhuman, and it is unnecessary. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
I just answer him when he says it is rarely used, that even Everett Koop said, and I quote, `In no 
way can I twist my mind to see that partial birth and then destruction of the unborn child before the 
head is born is a medical necessity for the mother.' The President has turned his back on millions of 
Americans who are sickened by this procedure. 

To the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who said that this is a rare procedure, and then tried to cover 
things up with statistics, I would say that, in fact, in New Jersey alone 1,500 babies were killed with 
this procedure and are killed every year. 

Now, we do not like to hear the details about this procedure. We do not like to talk about such 
things in public or in private. But, Madam Speaker, we must talk about them. The implications that 
we face if we do not are too far-reaching. The media rarely describes partial-birth abortion. They 
and some of my colleagues here today will politely call it a certain late-term procedure. Well, I 
submit to my colleagues that there is nothing polite about this procedure. Certainly the aborted baby, 
whose life is snuffed out in such a violent way, does not think that this is a polite procedure. 

Madam Speaker, human life is precious. When we allow human life to be so coldly and violently 
taken in the manner of the partial-birth abortion, we are all diminished as a society. So I urge my 
colleagues to think before they vote. This is a conscience vote. Is this the kind of procedure that my 
colleagues would be proud to tell their children that they supported? Is this the kind of violence that 
they would be comfortable in defending when it comes time to meet their maker? 

This is a real gut-wrenching conscience vote. Vote to override the President's veto. 

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) 

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and if the gentleman 
would stay in the well, I would ask my friend from Texas, I understand what he has said, and I agree 
with his proposition of the American public's view. I ask him this. He talks about a procedure. Is 
there a procedure that he believes is preferable? 

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, there is no procedure that is preferable in killing a baby that is about 
to be born naturally, no. I do not believe in a procedure that will kill a baby. I ask the gentleman 
back---- 

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time. 

Mr. DeLAY. At what time is it appropriate to kill a baby? 

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time. 

Mr. DeLAY. What time? The gentleman ought to answer that. 

Mr. HOYER. The court clearly has said that in terms of the Constitution there is a right of a woman 
and her doctor to make that decision and to terminate the pregnancy. 

My question, and rather than yell at one another, rather than accuse one another of awful things, I 
want to find out what we are talking about. It is my premise that the gentleman does not believe there 
is any procedure, at any time, that is less than objectionable. Am I correct in that premise? 

Mr. DeLAY. I think the gentleman's question is grammatically in error. 

Mr. HOYER. I would ask the gentleman to not quibble with me. I would ask the gentleman not to 
quibble with me; I am not trying to quibble with him. I am trying really to get to the heart of what I 
think is a difficult issue for the American public and for everyone on the floor. 

Mr. DeLAY. Well, ask the question. If the gentleman would ask the question in a manner someone 
can understand it, I will be glad to answer it. 

Mr. HOYER. All right. Does the gentleman believe there is any procedure acceptable to terminate a 
pregnancy at any time? 

Mr. DeLAY. No, I do not. 

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time. 

Mr. DeLAY. Unless it is for the life of a mother and a decision must be made between the baby and 
the life of the mother. Then that decision should be made. But, no, I do not believe that at any time 
an unborn child should be murdered just for convenience. No. 

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I understand what the gentleman said. In the case of the life of the 
mother, which the gentleman indicates he believes is an exception, what procedure would he 
advocate? What procedure to terminate the pregnancy would the gentleman advocate? 

Mr. DeLAY. We do not have to use this procedure. 

Mr. HOYER. No, I understand that. Which procedure would the gentleman advocate? 

Mr. DeLAY. I would like to answer the gentleman's question. Doctor after doctor, including C. 
Everett Koop, who was the surgeon general, says that there is no reason whatsoever, even for the 
life of a mother, that this particular procedure must be used, where a baby is nearly born and then 
they suck the brains out of its head before it is fully born. 

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I know the gentleman wants to make this debate as gruesome as 
he can. I understand that. I ask the gentleman again: In the instance in which the gentleman says is 
acceptable, saving the life of the mother, what procedure would the gentleman think is preferable? 

Mr. DeLAY. And if the gentleman will yield, I will tell the gentleman that this is a gruesome 
procedure for the baby that it is being performed on. 

Mr. HOYER. I understand. 

Mr. DeLAY. I am once again answering the gentleman that many doctors have already said and 
written extensively that this particular procedure does not have to be used. 

                                [TIME: 1115] 

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman does not either have an answer 
to my question or does not want to answer it. My presumption is that because he has no alternative, 
is there a procedure which he would believe was appropriate to save the life of the mother and, if so, 
what is that procedure. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 9 1/2 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Mrs. Linda Smith). 

Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, first I would like to read and then submit 
for the Record the American Medical Association letter endorsing this bill and saying that it is an 
unnecessary procedure. 

I think it is real revealing because the American Medical Association rarely or never interjects and 
makes illegal an abortion procedure, but they have made an exception in this case. I am going to 
read this short letter because it says a lot and it blows away a lot of the smoke about how this bill 
works. 

It says, `The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997,' as amended, that we support this. Then it goes 
on to say, `Although our general policy is to oppose legislation criminalizing medical practice or 
procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined,' 
and listen, `not medically indicated.' Otherwise, not medically necessary. `H.R. 1122 now meets 
both those tests. 

`Our support of this legislation is based on three specific principles. First, the bill would allow a 
legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician's 
judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother. Second, the bill would 
clearly define the prohibited procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation what act is to 
be banned. 

`Finally, the bill would give any accused physician the right to have his or her conduct reviewed by 
the State Medical Board before a criminal trial commenced. In this manner, the bill would provide a 
formal role for valuable medical peer determination in any enforcement proceeding. 

`The AMA believes that with these changes, physicians will be on notice as to the exact nature of the 
prohibited conduct.' 

Then in quotes, they have made it very clear, and I have the quotes and we can submit them, that 
they do not believe that partial birth abortion is ever needed. 

I want to talk about this procedure briefly because sometimes we forget what it is; and it is not 
pretty, but we are talking about lives and we are talking about law to protect vulnerable women and 
vulnerable babies. 

The procedure takes 3 days, my colleagues. They start by dilating the cervix. They use procedures 
that soften so that they can eventually find a way to make an opening large enough to pull the baby 
through. They turn the baby so it is actually breeched opposite the way a baby would be born. 

Often in that procedure they will wrap the baby with the cord, and sometimes the baby strangles. If 
not, they do deliver the baby in all cases. And right after the little feet come out and the little bottom 
and then they get the shoulders out, right before the head comes out, they hold the baby. 

Now, talking to nurses, this is very difficult because the natural process is for the baby to come out 
and breathe. They hold the baby because they know if that little nose comes out and the mouth the 
baby will breathe. If the baby breathes, under the law, it is alive. But if the baby does not breathe, it 
is not considered a person. So this is what we are talking about. The average cost is $1,200 to 
$1,600. And it has become an industry. 

Now, we have got some pretty interesting cases where women have gone and they have actually 
been hurt and died in partial birth abortions. But I want to talk about one, Louann Herron. And this 
is reported and it just came out, and it is very unfortunate because she was in the middle of a 
divorce. 

She went to an abortion clinic, where they make a lot of money. In fact, a lot of times the doctors 
are not there, they have the procedure done by someone else. I think it is very important that we 
understand that this is not for the baby or the woman. I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
President. 

Madam Speaker, I include the following articles for the Record: 

                                [Page: H6198] 

From the Arizona Republic, July 14, 1998 

               [FROM THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC, JULY 14, 1998] 

Patient `Didn't Have To Die' 

SHE WAS LEFT TO BLEED 3 HOURS AFTER ABORTION, EX-STAFFERS 
SAY 

       (BY HEATHER RATCLIFFE, SUSIE STECKNER AND JODIE SNYDER 

Louann Herron lay bleeding from a punctured uterus for more than three hours as a medical assistant 
at the A-Z Women's Center begged her supervisor to call 911, three former employees of the 
abortion clinic say. 

By the time the supervisor paged Herron's doctor to get permission to call paramedics, it was too 
late. 

Herron died hours after an abortion performed by Dr. John Biskind, the same doctor who delivered 
a full-term baby at the clinic June 30 after misdiagnosing the fetal age by 13 weeks. Biskind and 
center officials on Monday refused to comment on the case, which has prompted a police 
investigation. 

Herron's encounter with A-Z Women's Center began in a similar fashion. But it became a saga of 
disappointment, deception and death, according to three former employees who told their stories to 
The Arizona Republic. 

According to the former employees, Herron, 32, was in the process of being divorced when she 
visited the center April 7 with a friend for an abortion. 

An employee--fairly new to the clinic--performed an ultrasound examination indicating that Herron 
was 23 weeks and a few days pregnant. 

                                     -- 

American Medical Association, 
Chicago, IL, May 19, 1997. 

Hon. Rick Santorum, 
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC. 

Dear Senator Santorum: The American Medical Association (AMA) is writing to support HR 
1122, `The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997,' as amended. Although our general policy is to 
oppose legislation criminalizing medical practice or procedure, the AMA has supported such 
legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated. HR 1122 now 
meets both those tests. 

Our support of this legislation is based on three specific principles. First, the bill would allow a 
legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician's 
judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother. Second, the bill would 
clearly define the prohibited procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation what act is to 
be banned. Finally, the bill would give any accused physician the right to have his or her conduct 
reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial commenced. In this manner, the bill 
would provide a formal role for valuable medical peer determination in any enforcement proceeding. 

The AMA believes that with these changes, physicians will be on notice as to the exact nature of the 
prohibited conduct. 

Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not 
good medicine. 

Sincerely, 
P. John. Seward, MD. 

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). 

(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. BENTSEN. Madam Speaker, first of all, if we are going to take the AMA's word for this, then 
we ought to pass the Parker bill or the Patients' Bill of rights because the AMA endorses that. And if 
we are going to take Mr. Koop's word, then we ought to have a real tobacco bill in the House. But, 
obviously, the Republican majority wants to play fast and loose on whose advice they want to take 
and when they want to take it. 

I do not think any of us support this particular procedure. But why do we not look at what 40 other 
states, including my State of Texas, are doing. I have heard a lot of my colleagues, most from the 
other side, for the last 4 years talk about how the States are the laboratories of government, where 
we ought to be seeing what they are doing. But I guess that is only when it is convenient or when the 
States agree with us; and otherwise, if they do not, we are going to tell them what to do. That is what 
this bill does. But worse, this bill is about politics. 

Now, last week we had a vote on taking away abortion rights. Let me read what one of my 
colleagues said. `I want this to be a campaign issue. This is going to be great,' he said, adding that his 
colleagues who oppose abortion restrictions will face fierce questions in their districts. `They better 
be prepared to defend themselves because we are going to have the grassroots out there talking 
about it.' 

That is what this is about. It is not about the women who need the health services so they can bear 
more children. My good friend and colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, `where 
is the common decency?' 

Well, how is it for common decency when we tell a woman that she is going to lose the ability to 
bear more children if she cannot have a certain type of procedure? What is decent about that? Not a 
single thing. This is politics, pure and simple, and it is about as indecent as this House can get. 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Christensen). 

Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Yesterday I had the opportunity to manage the debate on the MFN Normal Trade Relations bill. A 
number of my pro-choice friends and colleagues over on this side were with me on that losing battle 
of 166 votes. 

But a number of those same people that were crying out for human rights in China, fighting for the 
forced abortions in China, talking about the issues of the Chinese women, are now on the same side 
of allowing this partial birth abortion bill to go forth. 

Well, what about the human rights in America? What about the human rights of the unborn children? 
What about the human rights of Baby Phoenix and the thousands and thousands of little children who 
are murdered each year? What about the human rights for those that have no say? 

If we are going to stand with the Chinese women and the forced abortions, we should stand together 
to make sure that the children have a voice in this, the Baby Phoenixes of the world, the Baby 
Phoenixes of America. 

Vote to override this partial birth abortion veto. Do what is right. 

                                [Page: H6199] 

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Tauscher). 

Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. 

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to reconsidering this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
sustaining the President's veto. 

We all agree that healthy women with healthy fetuses should not have post-viability abortions. But 
the authors of this bill do nothing to address this issue. Instead by focusing on medical procedures, 
the Republican leadership's partial birth abortion ban fails to fully address abortions performed 
post-viability and overreaches by banning abortions pre-viability. 

The Republican leadership has refused to bring up a bipartisan bill that accomplishes, in fact, what 
their bill only achieves in nasty rhetoric. 

H.R. 1032, which was introduced by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) at the beginning of the 105th session, would ban all late-term 
abortions unless it was necessary to save the life of the mother or to avert serious adverse health 
consequences. 

Unfortunately, the House leadership has presented us with the singular option of voting on H.R. 
1122, which is believed by many to be unconstitutional. 

Despite the fact that a modified ban would pass in the House, despite the fact that the President has 
said that he would sign the modified ban, this body has not even been given the opportunity to 
consider the Hoyer-Greenwood bill. 

The House leadership is clearly not interested in passing legislation that would set public policy on 
the issue of late-term abortion. Instead, they have tried to depict pro-choice Members as radical and 
out of step with the values of mainstream America. 

Further, in this debate today, unfortunately, they have chosen to demonize women and to accuse 
doctors of medical malfeasance. 

I and other supporters of the Hoyer-Greenwood bill are pro-choice and are willing to vote for a ban 
on late-term abortions provided that there are health and life exceptions. 

If the House leadership truly wants to reduce the number of late-term abortions performed, they 
would bring H.R. 1032, the Hoyer-Greenwood bill, to the floor and allow the House to debate a bill 
that would actually accomplish something. 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to discharge, because we 
must override the President's veto of a ban on this horrendous practice of partial birth abortions. 

It is an outrage that in this civilized modern society we still allow for this procedure to occur despite 
the mountain of evidence indicating that it is unnecessary and that it has, as the ultimate consequence 
of its completion, the killing of a partially delivered baby who cannot defend him or herself against 
the unscrupulous abortion industry. 

It is important to remind our colleagues what this gruesome procedure involves. It consists of 
partially delivering the life baby's feet first, with only the head inside the mother's womb, and then 
stabbing the child at the base of the skull, a child that is already able to live outside the mother's 
womb. 

The American Medical Association said about partial birth abortion, `the partial delivery of a living 
fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and 
physicians.' 

The AMA `could not find any identified circumstances in which the procedure was the only safe and 
effective abortion method.' 

Even abortion practitioners, like Martin Haskell, reported to the American Medical News, `most of 
my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. In my particular case, probably 20 percent of 
partial birth abortions are performed for genetic reasons. And the other 80 percent are purely 
elective.' 

Madam Speaker, Americans cannot stand idly by while this tragic procedure is performed. Many 
doctors have stated that this horrid practice can severely damage a woman's health. And let us not 
forget, it kills an innocent human life. 

Let us overturn the veto. 

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, could you advise us as to the time remaining on both sides, please? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 5 1/2 minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. 

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). 

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

I rise today, my colleagues, not so much to speak on the veto override, although the bill in question, I 
believe sincerely, will not in fact stop any abortion. This is about a procedure, not about abortion. 
The issue should not be about a procedure. I want to make it clear, I am opposed to late-term 
abortions by any procedure. 

I rise today to call Members' attention to legislation which has been referenced before that has as its 
intent stopping all late-term abortions by whatever procedure. 

I asked the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was there an alternative procedure he thought 
preferable. He would not answer that question. Nor will anybody on this floor. Not one. Because 
there is no alternative procedure that proponents believe is a preferable procedure. 

                                [TIME: 1130] 

The fact is I think most of us are against what the gentlewoman from Florida talked about, elective 
late-term abortions. I am absolutely opposed to that, unequivocally opposed to elective late-term 
abortions. 

Do I make exceptions in my bill? Yes. As the gentleman from Texas intoned, for the life of the 
mother. There is not a Member, I think, on this floor who would not vote for that exception. Not 
one. Then, yes, we go on to say for serious adverse health consequences to the mother, a 
wrenching, difficult decision for a doctor and a patient to make. 

But I am opposed and believe that any ethical doctor would oppose elective late-term abortions by 
whatever procedure. And if they do not, the medical association ought to take them to task and our 
bill would impose a very significant penalty on so doing. 

Whether this bill today passes or fails, I would ask the Committee on the Judiciary and ask the 
gentleman from Florida to report this bill to the floor. Let us debate. Let us go on record as 41 
States in America have gone on record and say, we are opposed as public policy to late-term, 
elective abortions. Period. No ifs, ands or buts, no this procedure is not good but that procedure is 
okay. Not deal with procedures. Deal with substance. Deal with saying that we should not have 
these abortions late-term for elective reasons. 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot). 

(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, a minute is not nearly enough time to address the horrors of 
partial-birth abortion. But I trust that during the course of this debate the truth will come through and 
this body will do the right thing, the decent thing and vote to override the President's unconscionable 
veto of the partial-birth abortion ban. This ought to be simple. You should not kill babies. 

Partial-birth abortion is infanticide. It is the termination of the life of a living baby just seconds before 
it takes its first breath outside the womb. The procedure is violent, it is gruesome, it is undeniably 
wrong. It is the killing of a baby as it is being born. 

This morning's vote is among the most important we will ever make. It is one that will long be 
remembered. I would urge my colleagues to say `no' to the abortion President and `no' to the most 
militant leaders of the abortion lobby and vote to protect the lives of helpless, defenseless little 
babies. 

Madam Speaker, let us vote today to defend those little babies who cannot defend themselves. 

                                [Page: H6200] 

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). 

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, could I ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), if he does 
not like partial-birth, what will he be willing to accept to save the life of the mother if he does not like 
this measure? 

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Under the proposal we have---- 

Mr. CONYERS. Just answer me. 

Mr. CHABOT. We would accept this procedure if the mother's life is at risk. 

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, you do accept it? 

Mr. CHABOT. I think everybody would accept when you have a balance between the mother's life 
and the child's life. That is not the issue. 

Mr. CONYERS. Then why are you opposing this? 

Mr. CHABOT. It is wrong to kill babies, as simple as that. 

Mr. CONYERS. Just a moment. No lectures. Just answer the question. What about serious health 
risk, like sterility? 

Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman will yield further, I think the gentleman is aware of when you talk 
about health risk. 

Mr. CONYERS. Just answer me. 

Mr. CHABOT. If somebody feels bad about themselves, that is enough to allow the procedure. 

Mr. CONYERS. What do you think about serious health risk, namely, fertility? What is the answer? 
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman from Michigan is aware that if you allow an 
exception for health reasons, it can mean if a psychiatrist thinks that somebody is going to feel better 
about themselves. 

Mr. CONYERS. We are talking about serious physical health. Yes or no. 

Mr. CHABOT. That is not what your bill says. The bottom line is we are trying to save babies. You 
are always saying, Let us do this for the children, let us do that for the children. Let us pass this veto 
override to save the children. This will really save children. 

Mr. CONYERS. What about all the other procedures that you allow that we are not doing this that 
we are doing to partial-birth? What about them? 

Mr. CHABOT. The bottom line is the folks that are on our side here want to save kids. We want to 
save children. 

Mr. CONYERS. I am talking about you. 

Mr. CHABOT. While they are being born. I think we ought to join together and try to save those 
babies that would otherwise be born. 

Mr. CONYERS. You are against protective procedure and all these other procedures. We will talk 
later about this. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. CONYERS. It was a pleasure. 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Ryun). 

Mr. RYUN. Madam Speaker, our civilized society must not allow President Clinton's preference for 
partial-birth abortions to continue. I not only speak for my fellow Kansans but also for the preborn 
children throughout this country whose lives are taken by this gruesome procedure. 

Recently a doctor performing a partial-birth abortion realized in the middle of the procedure that he 
had misjudged the baby's age. She was actually only three weeks away from being in full term. 
Thankfully the doctor was able to stop the abortion and successfully deliver the baby. That is a 
happy ending. 

However, the tragedy of partial-birth abortion is that any preborn baby in the third trimester has a 
good chance of survival. Only the abortionist's scalpel prevents that baby from having its first breath. 
Can we seriously allow a few inches to distinguish between a baby and a blob of tissue? 

Members of Congress as well as the AMA have not found a single circumstance where partial-birth 
abortion was the only safe and effective abortion method. It is just not there. 

The truth is this procedure poses a greater risk to the mother's health than a full-term delivery. For 
the health of women, for the lives of our children, and for the future of America, we must put an end 
to this ghastly procedure. 

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As has been pointed out in the 
debate, Madam Speaker, this bill will not stop any abortion. It will just require an alternative 
procedure to be used. We have had no answer to the question of what that alternative should be. 
What we should do is defeat the motion to discharge the committee from further consideration of the 
bill, require the Committee on the Judiciary to in fact consider the bill and the fact that it is 
unconstitutional and consider alternatives like the Hoyer-Greenwood bill that would prevent the 
maximum number of abortions consistent with the Supreme Court decisions. I would hope that we 
would defeat the motion and have the Committee on the Judiciary report a constitutional bill. 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hall). 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 1 1/2 
minutes. 

Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I rise as an original cosponsor of this most important act, and 
I support this motion to override the President's veto. 

Abortion, except to save the mother's life, is wrong. However, this particular procedure is doubly 
wrong. It requires a partial delivery and involves pain to the baby. 

Madam Speaker, we have heard the medical details of these abortions from others. I believe that a 
compassionate society should not promote a procedure that is gruesome and inflicts pain on the 
victim. We have humane methods of capital punishment. We have humane treatment of prisoners. 
We even have laws to protect animals. It seems to me we should have some standards for abortion 
as well. 

Many years ago, surgery was performed on newborns with the thought that they did not feel pain. 
Now, we know they do feel pain. According to Dr. Paul Ranalli, a neurologist at the University of 
Toronto, at 20 weeks a human fetus is covered by pain receptors and has 1 billion nerve cells. Pain 
is inflicted to the fetus with this procedure. 

Madam Speaker, I do not want to discuss this bill relating to abortion without saying that we have a 
deep moral obligation to improving the quality of life for children after they are born. I could not 
stand here and honestly debate this subject with a clear conscience if I did not spend a good portion 
of my time on improving hunger conditions and trying to help children and their families achieve a just 
life after they are born. 

Enough is enough. One thing this Congress ought to do this year is stop this very reprehensible and 
gruesome technique of abortion. We treat dogs better than this. 

Please vote to override the President's veto. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion. 

There was no objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Canady). 

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. 

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not 
present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present. 

The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members. 

Without objection, votes on the motion to instruct and on a motion to authorize closed meetings of 
conferees on the national defense authorization will be taken immediately following the 15-minute 
vote on the motion to discharge, and the vote on closing meetings will be conducted as a 5-minute 
vote. 

There was no objection. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 295, nays 131, not voting 8, as 
follows: 

                                [Page: H6201] 

Roll No. 321 

                                [Roll No. 321] 

                                  YEAS--295 

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

                                 NAYS--131 

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

                               NOT VOTING--8 

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

                                [TIME: 1202] 

Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin changed his vote from `nay' to `yea.' 

So the motion was agreed to. 

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. 

END 
 

Return to front page.