Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 3) to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we have a very bad combination: Members of Congress who want to play doctor and Members of Congress who want to play Supreme Court. When we put the two together, we have a description for some very bad medicine for the women of this country.

Today's vote is different from previous votes. Every Member of this House should understand that this is not a free vote. This legislation will become law unless we stop it. We cannot count on the Senate, we cannot count on the President, and remember that this President is trying to pack the Supreme Court with reactionary justices. If this bill becomes law, it will be the first time since Roe vs. Wade was decided that Congress will have acted to criminalize the constitutional right to choose.

No one should think it will end here. This is only the first, not the last, bill that people who want to turn back the clock will bring forward. If my colleagues do not believe that this bill is intended as a direct assault on Roe, they should ask themselves why was a nonbinding statement supporting the right to choose pursuant to Roe and opposing efforts to overturn it dropped from the bill in the conference committee? Do not be fooled. Do not listen to what they say. Look at what they are doing.

Although this bill is blatantly and facially unconstitutional, the Supreme Court's decision striking down an almost identical Nebraska statute was a close vote. This administration is determined to pack the Court with justices committed to eliminating the fundamental right to keep government out of the most personal decisions involving women's life and health. So even though this bill is blatantly unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court, one cannot count on the Supreme Court maintaining that view if the President succeeds in packing it with reactionaries, which is why this bill is before us.

We will not find the term ``partial birth abortion'' in any medical textbook. The authors of this legislation prefer the language of propaganda to the language of science.

For one thing, the rhetoric behind this bill is really a rhetoric aimed at late-term abortion, at fetuses that look like human beings, that are almost born; late-term fetuses, as people understand the term. The fact is, though, that if we want to ban late-term abortions, I do not think there will be many people in this Chamber who would oppose that. Forty-one States have done so against almost no opposition.

The Supreme Court has said that we have the power to ban abortions after viability. Most States have done so. If the horror that is to be addressed, the alleged horror that is to be addressed is as described, just put in a bill that says no abortions after fetal viability. Very few people would oppose it. It would pass, and that would take care of the problem. But that amendment was also defeated in conference because that is not the intent here.

One of the problems with this bill from a constitutional point of view is that the term is so vaguely defined that it could easily refer to various different procedures that are necessary in second trimester, not late term, but second trimester, pre-viability abortions, when there are certain health problems attendant on the pregnancy. This bill is intended to forbid that, too, and to chill doctors from performing certain techniques which may be the best from a health point of view in second trimester abortions lest they have

a prosecution under this bill, even though it is not clearly defined.

This bill reads as if the authors carefully studied the Supreme Court's decisions and then went out of their way to thumb their noses at 30 years of clear law. Unless the authors think that when the Court has made repeated and clear statements over 30 years of what the Constitution requires that the Court was just pulling our leg, this bill must be considered facially unconstitutional.

Outrageously, both from a substantive point of view and a constitutional point of view, there is no health exception. A partial birth abortion as defined would be prohibited even where necessary to preserve the health of the mother. That is just outrageous on its face. But, in addition to this, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that we must have a health exception in a bill even with respect to post- viability abortions if that bill is going to be constitutional. We cannot prohibit abortions or abortion procedures necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

The exception for a woman's life in this bill is so narrow that it violates the Constitution and will place doctors in the position of trying to guess just how grave a danger to her life a pregnancy must pose to a woman before they can be confident that protecting her will not result in jail time.

I know that some of my colleagues do not like the clear requirements of the Constitution, but that is the law of the land, and no amount of rhetoric will change that. The drafters of this bill, as the distinguished chairman said a few minutes ago, say that the findings included in the bill, the findings that so-called partial birth abortions are never medically necessary, that these findings get around the constitutional requirement as established by the Supreme Court, that a medical procedure necessary to preserve the life or health of a woman cannot be denied. But Congress is not a doctor, and certainly Congress is not the doctor in a particular procedure performed on a particular woman. Only her doctor, who knows her medical condition, can decide what is medically necessary.

The Supreme Court has made clear that it is not interested in Congress' findings of fact, despite what the distinguished chairman said. Boerne and other cases, though they pay lip service to Congress' findings of fact, toss them out routinely. The Supreme Court will not ignore the significant body of medical opinion contradicting what the sponsors of the bill say.

Many supporters of this bill think all abortion is infanticide. They are entitled to their view, but it is not the mainstream view. This bill would foist this fringe belief on American women. This bill would criminalize abortions in the second trimester and turn doctors treating women with dangerously deformed fetuses, those that can never be born alive, into criminals.

We could prohibit post-viability abortions in situations in which a woman's life and health is not in jeopardy, but this bill does not do that. That is where the abortion itself would not put the woman's life or health in jeopardy. But that is not what this bill does. Forty-one States, as I said already, ban post-viability abortions. Almost nobody would oppose that bill. But that is not this bill.

Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, and one of the most radical opponents of a woman's right to choose, has called this bill a political scam and a public relations gold mine. He is right. The real purpose of this bill is not as we have been told, to save babies, but to save elections. Unfortunately, today, women's health takes a back seat to politics and political extremism.

Hopefully, the Constitution still serves as a bulwark against such efforts. Regrettably, we cannot be sure the current efforts to pack the courts will not succeed. We should all vote today as if women's lives depend on it. They do. And I hope this Chamber, this House will reject this bill, as it ought to.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to comment on some of what we just heard.

Mr. Speaker, the American Medical Women's Association, an organization of 10,000 women physicians and medical students dedicated to promoting women's health and advancing women in medicine, states, ``We recognize this legislation is an attempt to ban a procedure that in some circumstances is the safest and most appropriate alternative available to save the life and health of the woman.''

The American Public Health Association with 50,000 members from over 50 public health occupations writes the same. So to say it is universally recognized that there is no medical necessity for the procedures described in this bill or perhaps described in the imprecise definition of this bill is not correct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard repeatedly, including from the last speaker, that so-called partial-birth abortion is never a necessary procedure to save the life and health of the mother, but fact is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and I am reading now from the committee report, minority views, ``the leading professional association of physicians who specialize in the health care of women, has concluded that the D & X'' procedure, which is one procedure described by partial-birth abortion, ``is a safe procedure and may be the safest option for some women. ACOG has explained that intact D & E, including D & X, is a minor, and often safer, variant of the `traditional' nonintact D & E. ACOG has also stated that D & X `may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman. Only the physician, in consultation with the patient and based on her circumstances, can make this decision.' ''

That is why relying on this kind of medical evidence, ``the Supreme Court concluded in Stenberg that `significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances D & X would be the safest procedure.' Indeed, the Court concluded that `a statute that altogether forbids D & X creates a significant health risk.' ''

So much for the so-called findings in this bill, the Supreme Court has already thrown them in the trash basket.

That is why, in addition to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, numerous other medical groups have publicly opposed attempts by Congress to pass this legislation, and among those which have labeled this legislation as injurious to women's health, and therefore they oppose it, are the American Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Medical Women's Association, the California Medical Association, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, the Association of Schools of Public Health, the National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Reproductive Health. And, finally, ``contrary to the claims of the sponsors of'' this bill, ``the American Medical Association does not support any criminal abortion ban legislation.''

So, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has already said, in so many words, that any legislation that altogether forbids some of the kinds of procedures that would be described by this legislation creates a significant health risk for women, and, therefore, is unconstitutional.

Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that the arguments that this is never a medically necessary procedure are refuted by all the different medical groups that I named and by the specific findings of the Supreme Court in the Stenberg case. And all the nonsense about findings by Congress will not avail to make this bill constitutional against the finding by the Supreme Court. This is a Supreme Court that does not care that much about findings by Congress anyway, and that has said, in so many words, that a statute that altogether forbids D & X, one of the procedures that clearly would be outlawed by this bill, creates a significant health risk and an unconstitutional health risk.

So this bill is clearly unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because it does not give people a right to do what the physician and the patient regard as the safest procedure to save the health and life of the mother, which the Supreme Court says they must do. But beyond that, this is clearly an assault on Roe v. Wade, whatever else anybody may say.

If it is not an assault on Roe, if it is not deliberately an assault, getting the nose under the camel's tent to try to ban all abortions, to try to say that women should not have the right to make this choice, to try to say that the men and women in this Chamber have more to say about a woman's health choice than she does herself, then why did the conferees, the members of the conference, remove the nonbinding language that said this did not attack Roe v. Wade? Because they were a little more honest. The Senate was a little more honest than the people in this House are being. They recognize this for what it is, an attack on Roe v. Wade, and, frankly, the majority Members of the House also wanted to remove that language, and they were honest the day before yesterday.

So, Mr. Speaker, the current Supreme Court clearly considers this unconstitutional. A future Supreme Court packed with reactionary appointees by the President might not. This puts at risk the right of women to choose. And the fundamental question here is, as it has always been, there are fundamentally different religious views about when life begins, about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate, and we are all entitled to our views, be they motivated by religion or moral fervor or whatever. What we are not entitled to do is to use the force of law to impose the religious views of some people on other people who do not agree with that and to say to a woman they must risk their life, they must risk their health because we do not think it is right for them to have an abortion. That is what this is about.

That is what this is about. The right to choose is the key right here, and this bill is a direct assault on that. Therefore, we ought to oppose it. It will be a sad day when this House passes this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a historic day for America, for more, I think, than most people in here realize. For the first time in the history of the Republic, the Congress of the United States is poised to outlaw a medical procedure. A majority that wants the government off everybody's backs, wants to preserve privacy, is inserting itself between a woman and her family and her physician.

I wonder what is next. Perhaps they will decide that one cannot have a hysterectomy during child-bearing years, even though one may have some serious disease, or maybe we will outlaw vasectomies. That would be something we could do in here today too. And maybe we would not even like gallbladder operations. Who knows? There may be some reason we would not want to do those. All of them are pretty gruesome to describe.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the beginning of a new fiscal year and only three of the 13 bills appropriating funds for the new year have been signed into law. Millions of Americans are unemployed. Jobs continue steadily to disappear. More families living in poverty for the second year in a row, another historic day for America that has not happened before. Tens of millions of families live without any health insurance. The Federal debt is projected to reach $5 trillion. Thousands of American troops are in Iraq working in dangerous conditions. And instead of addressing these pressing issues, we are once again considering legislation that violates fundamental constitutional rights and threatens women's health.

Three years ago, the United States Supreme Court settled this issue, they thought once and for all, when it struck down similar legislation that banned safe and effective abortion procedures. The Court again confirmed the constitutional foundation of women's reproductive rights as recognized in Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed 2 decades later in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. At the end of their last term, in the Lawrence v. Texas decision, the Court relied on the right to privacy that was recognized in Roe.

Despite the minor tinkering of the conference committee, S. 3 still suffers from the same constitutional flaws as the Nebraska statute thrown out by the Supreme Court, and this one we hope will meet the same fate. The ban on medical procedures is vague and overbroad and does not contain an exception to perform the procedure when a woman's health is threatened, and it goes so far as to give the father of the fetus the right to sue the woman or the doctor for money damages, even if he is not married to her or if he beats her or rapes her.

Obstetricians and gynecologists say that the term ``partial-birth abortion'' is not a medical term, and they are right. It is a political creation. We will not find the definition of the procedure that S. 3 seeks to ban in a medical dictionary or textbook. The nonmedical language in S. 3 could cover at least two different kinds of procedures, one of which is the most commonly used abortion procedure. This vague and overbroad definition would create so much confusion in the medical community that doctors would not know which medical procedure might land them in jail, and we should not make our doctors criminals.

S. 3 brazenly seeks to sidestep the Constitution. The Supreme Court has plainly determined that the Constitution requires an exception when the woman's health is endangered. Pages and pages of congressional findings will not change or will not fulfill the constitutional demand to protect a woman's health.

The authors of this bill hope that the Federal courts, most especially the Supreme Court, will defer to these congressional findings and waive this constitutional requirement. But the Court has squarely said that ``the power to interpret the Constitution in a case of controversy remains in the judiciary.'' And the Court has said that simply because Congress makes a conclusion does not necessarily make it so. Just because the findings in the bill assert that there is no medical reason for a health exception does not make that true, and it does not change the demands of the Constitution.

Last June, when the House first considered this bill, Ruth Marcus noted in The Washington Post that ``just as Clarence Thomas wrote in a different context that, if Congress `could make a statute constitutional simply by finding that black is white or that freedom is slavery, then judicial review would be an elaborate farce.' ''

Despite what politicians may say, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the doctors who perform these procedures, say that the procedure this bill seeks to proscribe

``may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life,'' I want to emphasize that, ``to save the life or preserve the health of a woman,'' and that ``only the physician, in consultation with the patient and based on her circumstances, can make this decision,'' not the Congress of the United States. We are not physicians here. I think we think we are omnipotent; we are not. Medical professionals in every Federal court in the country that has heard this issue, except for one, all have agreed that these are safe procedures and they may, in fact, be the safest procedure in some circumstances.

This, as I pointed out before, is the first time in the history of this Republic that Congress is banning a specific medical procedure. Physicians, and not politicians and pundits, should provide women and their families with medical advice. Women and their families, not the government, should make these difficult and private and medical decisions.

This bill would deprive doctors of the ability to care for their patients. By outlawing safe and effective medical procedures, Congress would subject women to more dangerous medical procedures, putting their health and their lives in jeopardy. Do we really want to do that? Women deserve the best medical care based on the circumstances of their particular situation. Instead of making abortion more difficult and dangerous, we should pass legislation that helps reduce the need for abortions; but we will not do that, by reducing the number of intended pregnancies. We should increase the funding for title X, and health insurance should cover contraception. It covers Viagra. Why not contraception? Emergency contraception should be more available. And research on other contraceptive methods should be fostered.

So why are we here today considering a rule for an unconstitutional bill? Richard Posner, Chief Justice of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 7th Circuit who was appointed by President Reagan, gave us the answer when he wrote that the proponents of similar legislation ``are concerned with making a statement in an ongoing war for public opinion, though an incidental effect may be to discourage late-term abortions. The statement is that fetal life is more valuable than women's health.'' Let me say that last sentence again: ``The statement is that fetal life is more valuable than women's health.'' Judge Posner went on, writing that ``if a statute burdens constitutional rights and all that can be said on its behalf is that it is the vehicle that legislators have chosen for expressing their hostility to the rights, the burden is undue.''

The deliberate actions of the conference committee underscore the real aim of the bill. The majority of the other body passed a version, S. 3, that said, ``The decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right, and such decision should not be overturned.'' Tuesday evening, the conference committee, along party lines, quickly stripped the Roe-supportive language out of the bill. This emphasizes the true purpose of the legislation: targeting a woman's right to privacy, with the hope that a Supreme Court with a new justice or two will weaken or reverse Roe. A Washington Post article said it plainly: ``The political agenda is clear. Ken Connor, president of the conservative Family Research Council, spelled it out in an e-mail after the Senate voted last March. With this bill,'' he wrote, ``we are beginning to dismantle, brick by brick, the deadly edifice created by Roe v. Wade.''

As a mother, grandmother, and a long-time advocate for women's health, I strongly believe that this bill is a threat to women's health, and an attempt to whittle away at a woman's constitutional right to her privacy and control of her body. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose S. 3.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I need really to respond to the previous speaker.

First, Roe v. Wade does not allow abortions after the first trimester without a doctor's permission. These are fetuses in many cases with no brains, with no lungs, who may live for a moment or two. These are not children that are born and run around the room.

It is outrageous to stigmatize women who have had this procedure so that they can protect their fertility system so that maybe they, too, can have 12 children and not have to stop with one. Have a little compassion.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) have any further speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left on either side.

Mr. Speaker, do I understand the gentlewoman has no more speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

First, let me say that no one is advocating the killing of disabled children. That is offensive to all of us. The fact is that a fetus that is being born with no brain or one with no lungs is one that will not live. I believe even the OB/GYN would admit to that.

Let me then go on to say that this decision to terminate a pregnancy in the late term is an agonizing decision. Parents who have carried a child to late term desperately want that child. In many cases, they have already named that child. Listen to the story of Viki Wilson and her family.

She told in her own words: ``In the spring of 1994, I was pregnant and expecting Abigail, my third child. My husband, Bill, an emergency room physician, had delivered our other children, and would do it again this time. At 36 weeks of pregnancy, however, all of our dreams and happy expectations came crashing down around us. My doctor ordered an ultrasound that detected what all of my previous prenatal testing had failed to detect, an encephalocoele. Approximately two-thirds of my daughter's brain had formed outside her skull. What I thought were big, healthy, strong baby movements were in fact seizures.

``My doctor sent me to several specialists, including a perinatologist,'' I am sorry, I am so upset about this I can hardly speak, ``a pediatric radiologist and a geneticist, in a desperate attempt to find a way to save her. But everyone agreed, she would not survive outside my body. They also feared that as the pregnancy progressed, before I went into labor, she would probably die from the increased compression in her brain.

``Our doctors explained our options, which included labor and delivery, C-section, or termination of pregnancy. Because of the size of her anomaly, the doctors feared that my uterus might rupture in the birthing process, possibly rendering me sterile. The doctors also recommended against a C-section, because they could not justify the risks to my health when there was not hope of saving Abigail.'' No hope of saving Abigail.

``We agonized over our options. Both Bill and I are medical professionals. I am a registered nurse, and Bill is a physician. So we understood the medical risks inherent in each of our options. After discussing our situation extensively and reflecting on our options, we made the difficult decision to undergo an intact D&E.

``Losing Abigail was the hardest thing that ever happened to us in our lives, but I am grateful,'' I am grateful, ``that Bill and I were able to make this decision ourselves and that we were given all of our medical options. There will be families in the future faced with this tragedy. Please allow us to have access to the medical procedures we need. Do not complicate the tragedies we already face.''

Oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 383, I call up the conference report accompanying the Senate bill (S. 3) to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 3, the conference report currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 would prohibit the gruesome and inhumane procedure known as partial-birth abortion that unfortunately we are now all too familiar with. An abortionist who violates this ban would be subject to fines, a maximum of 2 years imprisonment, or both. This ban includes an exception for those situations in which a partial-birth abortion is deemed necessary to save the life of the mother.

After two Presidential vetoes, this ban will finally become law and the performance of this barbaric procedure will come to an end. I am pleased to bring this conference report, which is the product of a House and Senate conference meeting held earlier this week, before the House. This bill, nearly identical to this conference report, passed the House of Representatives this summer by a 282 to 139 vote, and language identical to H.R. 760 passed the House last year by a 274 to 151 vote.

A partial-birth abortion is an unsafe procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited. Contrary to the claims of partial-birth abortion advocates, this brutal procedure remains an untested, unproven, and potentially dangerous procedure that has never been embraced by the medical profession. As a result, the United States Congress, after receiving and reviewing extensive evidence, voted to ban partial-birth abortions during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congress, and at least 27 States enacted bans on this procedure. Unfortunately, the two Federal bans that reached President Clinton's desk were promptly vetoed.

In June 2000, the United States Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban, which was similar, but not identical, to bans previously passed by Congress. In Stenberg v. Carhart, the court concluded that Nebraska's ban did not clearly distinguish the prohibited procedure from other more commonly performed second- trimester abortion procedures. The court also held, on the basis of the highly disputed factual findings of the district court, that the law was required to include an exception for partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

The conference report's new definition of a partial-birth abortion addresses the court's first concern by more clearly defining the prohibited procedure than the statute at issue in Stenberg. The conference report also addresses the court's second objection to the Nebraska law by including extensive congressional findings, based upon medical evidence received in a series of legislative hearings, that, contrary to the factual findings of the district court in Stenberg, partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health, poses serious risk to a woman's health, and, in fact, is below the requisite standard of medical care.

The conference report's lack of a health exception is based upon Congress' factual determination that partial birth abortion is a dangerous procedure that does not serve the health of any woman. The Supreme Court has a long history, particularly in the area of civil rights, of deferring to Congress' factual conclusions. In doing so, the Court has recognized that Congress' institutional structure makes it better suited than the Judiciary to assess facts based upon which it will make policy determinations. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that, as an institution, ``Congress is far better equipped than the Judiciary to amass and evaluate vast amounts of data bearing upon complex issues.'' As Justice Rehnquist has stated, the Court must be ``particularly careful not to substitute its judgment of what is desirable for that of Congress or its own evaluation of evidence for a reasonable evaluation by the legislative branch.''

Thus, in Katzenback v. Morgan, while addressing section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Court deferred to Congress' factual determination that section 4(e) would assist the Puerto Rican community in gaining nondiscriminatory treatment in public services, stating, ``It is not for us to review the congressional resolution of the various issues it had before it to consider. Rather, it is enough that we are able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress might resolve the conflict as it did.''

Similarly, in Fullilove v. Klutznick, when reviewing the minority business enterprise provision of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977, the Court repeatedly cited and deferred to the legislative record the factual conclusions of Congress to uphold the provisions as an appropriate exercise of congressional authority.

The conference report's critics cite to Boerne v. Flores for support of their argument that the Court will strike this ban down. Yet Boerne addressed Congress' authority to determine the scope of rights protected by the Constitution, not the issue of whether Congress' factual determinations should be overruled by a court.

In Boerne, the Court explicitly confirmed that Congress' factual conclusion should be granted great weight, stating that it is for Congress in the first instance to determine whether and what legislation is needed to secure the guarantees of the 14th amendment and its conclusions are entitled to much deference, and that this judicial deference in most cases is based not on the state of the legislative record Congress compiles but on due regard for the decision of the body constitutionally appointed to decide.

Boerne does not stand for the proposition that Congress is bound to reach the same factual conclusions as the trial court did in Stenberg, particularly when Congress has reviewed extensive credible evidence, evidence that is more complete than the evidentiary record facing the Stenberg trial court, that directly contradicts the trial court's conclusions.

Substantial evidence presented and compiled at extensive congressional hearings, much of which was compiled after the District Court hearing in Stenberg and thus not included in the Stenberg trial record, demonstrates that a partial birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman. The vast majority of partial birth abortions are performed on normal babies during normal pregnancies. Obstetricians who regularly treat patients suffering from serious medical complications during pregnancy or serious life-threatening fetal abnormalities utilize established, safe medical procedures, not the partial birth abortion procedure.

Previous bills that were nearly identical to this conference report enjoyed overwhelming support from Members of both parties precisely because of the barbaric nature of the procedure and the dangers it poses to women who undergo it. Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns but all vulnerable and innocent human life. Fortunately, we are only weeks if not days away from putting an end to partial birth abortions. I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for bringing this diagram to the floor of the House so that we may be able to graphically see how a partial-birth abortion is performed. The difference between a partial-birth abortion, which this bill will ban, and first-degree murder is three inches. Three inches. That is why this bill is not a travesty. This bill is a serious attempt to get rid of a gruesome and barbaric procedure. Anyone who does not think this procedure is gruesome and barbaric ought to look at the diagram that the gentleman from Wisconsin has presented to the House.

Mr. Speaker, the next two speakers on our side are medical doctors. We have heard a lot about people playing doctor here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), M.D.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), M.D., for another medical opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 383 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule to provide for the customary 1 hour of consideration for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Conference Report of 2003.

The rule waives all points of order against the conference report to accompany S. 3 and against its consideration. It also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

This conference report makes it illegal in the United States for a physician to perform a partial-birth abortion. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I am very pleased to see this conference report reach the floor of the House of Representatives. I have been waiting for this day to come since 1995.

I am sure that President Bush is eagerly awaiting the opportunity to put an end to this horrific act of human violence by signing this legislation into law. Finally, we have a President in the White House who will not veto this monumental legislation.

I also want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the Rotunda for passing this important legislation. I must say, as a mother and a grandmother, it is astonishing to me that this horrible practice is even remotely legal in America today, and as we will no doubt hear on the floor today, it is practiced all too often in there country.

Partial-birth abortion is the procedure where a pregnant woman's cervix is forcibly dilated over a 3-day period. On the third day, her child is pulled, feet first, through the birth canal until his or her entire body, except for the head, is outside the womb. The head is held inside the womb by the woman's cervix, and while the fetus is stuck in this position, dangling partly out of the woman's body and just a few inches from a completed birth, the abortionist inserts scissors into the base of the baby's skull, and the scissors are opened, creating a hole in the baby's head. The skull is either then crushed with instruments or a suction catheter is inserted into the hole and the baby's brain is suctioned out. Since the head is now small enough to slip through the mother's cervix, the now lifeless body is pulled the rest of the way out of its mother and the baby's corpse is discarded, usually as medical waste.

The vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy babies and healthy mothers. Congressional findings have shown that the procedure is not medically necessary and actually poses a significant threat to the mother's health and her future fertility.

This conference report would also punish those who perform the procedure with fines and prison terms of up to 2 years. Husbands or parents of women younger than 18 would be able to sue for damages.

Although language banning this procedure was struck down in the past by the Supreme Court, this new legislation has been tailored to address the Court's concerns. The five-justice majority in Stenberg v. Carhart thought that Nebraska's definition of partial-birth abortion was vague and could be construed to cover not only abortions in which the baby is mostly delivered alive before being killed, but also the more common ``dilation and evacuation,'' D & E method. The conference report defines partial-birth abortion as an abortion in which ``the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the naval is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus.''

The tighter definition not only clarifies the procedure so that the court will not reject it, it also draws attention to the violence of partial-birth abortion by describing how far out the baby can be. We have changed the bill, adding findings of fact to overcome constitutional barriers, and I am confident it will survive judicial review.

This is a historic day for the American people. A civilized society cannot tolerate the barbaric nature of the partial-birth abortion procedure. Mr. Speaker, the public wants this bill in overwhelming numbers, believing in their hearts that we as a Nation are better than this. We are a better people. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

(Mrs. MUSGRAVE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I have about five more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I just have one more speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

We have had a lot of debate this morning on this issue, and we will have a lot more debate on this issue as we go through the actual bill and not just the rule; and I hope the American people can see what we are talking about. I still find it very hard to believe as a mother, a grandmother, and a great-grandmother that anybody could allow this horrific procedure to happen to their child.

So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and to vote in favor of the underlying legislation so it can finally be passed into law and signed by our President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this important issue.

It has been almost a decade since the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion escaped the shadowy corners of the abortion clinics and was revealed to the public. In the years that followed, we have seen an overwhelming majority of the American people, many in the medical community, and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers at all levels of government push for an end to this barbaric procedure.

In fact, the first initiative in Congress to ban partial birth abortions started with a small group of us back in 1995. When I first learned that these horrific acts were occurring, I thought for sure that they would be outlawed at least by the time we celebrated the new millennium. Yet Presidential vetoes, confounding court decisions, and tenacious partial birth abortion advocates have maintained this particularly troubling form of abortion in this country.

We stand here today, having overcome many obstacles, with a strong bipartisan majority in the House ready to stop a procedure that is akin to infanticide, with a President willing to stand up for the culture of life in America, with constitutional legislation that should satisfy any unbiased and open-minded court.

Of course, we will still hear vocal protests on the floor today and in the courts once this bill becomes law. Contrary to the claims of partial birth abortion advocates, however, this barbaric procedure has never been embraced by the mainstream medical community and remains untested, unproven, and absolutely dangerous.

The most common assertion that a partial birth abortion is necessary to preserve the health of the mother is simply inconsistent with the overwhelming weight of authority. Virtually all evidence, including information we obtained at extensive legislative hearings, demonstrates that partial birth abortion is dangerous to women and is never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. In fact, according to the American Medical Association, and I quote, ``There is no consensus among obstetricians about its use;'' and, ``It is not in the medical textbooks.''

Even Dr. Warren Hern, the author of the standard textbook on abortion procedures, has testified that he had ``very serious reservations about this procedure,'' and he would ``dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use.''

Those who continue to espouse the view that partial-birth abortion may be the most appropriate abortion procedure for some women in some circumstances have failed to identify such circumstances. Most in the mainstream medical community continue to view partial-birth abortion as nothing more than an experimental procedure, the safety and efficacy of which has never been confirmed. The American Association of American Physicians and Surgeons wrote to me earlier this year and stated ``partial-birth abortion has no medical indications. We can conceive of no circumstance in which it would be needed to save the life or preserve the health of a mother.'' Clearly, women deserve better than this.

Partial-birth abortion is also brutal and inhumane to the nearly-born infant. Virtually all of the infants subjected to this procedure are alive and feel excruciating pain. In fact, the infant's perception of painful stimuli at this stage of development is more intense than that of newborn infants and older children.

In testimony to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Brenda Pratt Schaefer, a registered nurse, captured the true horror of partial-birth abortion. Ms. Schaefer observed Dr. Martin Haskell, who first introduced this rogue procedure to the abortion community over 10 years ago, use the partial-birth abortion procedure on at least three different babies. Describing what she saw performed on a child who was 26\1/2\ weeks along, she testified, ``Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal, then delivered together the baby's body and the arms, everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping and his little

feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head and the baby's arms jerked out like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used. I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse and she said it was just reflexes. That baby boy had the most perfect, angelic face I think I have ever seen in my life.'' That is what this nurse said when she saw this happen.

I ask my colleagues in the House to quickly approve our conference report so we may send this important legislation to the President. Every day that we delay is another day that an unborn baby boy suffers unconscionably. Every day that we delay is another day that a baby girl's life is brutally ended. Every day that we delay is another day that we continue to live this national tragedy.