F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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 H.R. 2655, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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. SENSENBRENNER. 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. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the bill and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 49) to permanently extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2152) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend for an additional 5 years the special immigrant religious worker program.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill adds the National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day to the list of days upon which the American flag should especially be displayed. Currently, title 4 of the U.S. Code provides that the flag should be displayed on all days, but specifically mentions 10 permanent Federal holidays on which the flag should be displayed. This bill would amend title 4 to include July 27, the National Korean War Armistice Day. Nearly 1.8 million American soldiers fought bravely in harsh weather and foreign terrain over the course of 3 years to defend democratic South Korea from an offensive invasion launched by communist North Korea when its armed forces crossed the 38th parallel. On July 27, 1953, an armistice was signed and North Korea withdrew to its side allowing South Korea to remain an independent democratic nation. At the war's conclusion, over 103,000 American soldiers had been wounded, and 36,577 were killed. The 10 permanent Federal holidays that are currently listed in law serve to recognize the people and events that have shaped the character of our Nation. By adding this day to this list, the bill will ensure that those who fought and died so bravely in the Korean War are recognized for their contribution to our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 292) to amend title 4, United States Code, to add National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day to the list of days on which the flag should especially be displayed.