Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks]. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if I may add for just a moment to what the doctor has said, if the doctor does not know, how does he expect Members of Congress to make this decision? Why should we be doing that?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to urge Members to defeat the previous question. If it is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered in the Committee on Rules yesterday by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. The amendment is the same language offered by Senator Daschle during Senate consideration. Members of this House deserve an opportunity to vote on this substitute. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I include the text of the amendment: Amendment to House Resolution 262 Strike all after the resolved clause and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1122) to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions, with Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the House, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, a single motion offered by Representative Hoyer of Maryland that the House concur in the amendments of the Senate with an amendment. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question.''.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record a comment. Although Dr. Coburn has his opinion, that is just one doctor. I would like to say that a panel convened by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says that while it is not the only option, ``An intact 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, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision.'' Mr. Speaker, if we believe this is murder, we should be filing criminal charges, and I do not see anybody doing that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am saddened beyond measure every time we debate this issue. Every one of us who has been brought up by a woman that we consider brilliant and wonderful suddenly decides here that the women in the country do not have any sense at all and, if this Congress did not act, they might do something really dreadful. Well, for all of my colleagues who have never had the honor of carrying a baby, let me say it does not work that way. Women who undergo this procedure want these babies desperately. The fact that at almost the point of birth they find that they cannot carry that baby to term is heartbreaking for them. Mr. Speaker, I pray that none of my colleagues, and none of their family members, ever have to reach that decision. But for heavens sake, I do not believe it is the province of the House of Representatives to determine whether or not that woman can get that procedure. In fact, I would wager to my colleagues, if that decision were to be made, a woman and her family facing that and this procedure was outlawed, I do not believe that the doctor would stop it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. This rule would allow the Congress to take up once again one of the most shameful bills that has ever come before this Chamber. In their war against a woman's right to choose, antichoice forces have shown that they are willing to sacrifice a woman's health and her future fertility to pursue the extreme agenda by passing H.R. 1122. The House will be asked today to adopt the Senate amendments to H.R. 1122. These amendments consist of three minor changes that were made in order to secure the controversial endorsement of the American Medical Association. These changes do not alter the substance of the bill, which seeks for the first time ever, ever, Mr. Speaker, to make a specific medical procedure a Federal crime. Rather, these changes provide further protection for doctors who may face prosecution under this proposal if it becomes law. Evidently, antichoice advocates are more interested in protecting a doctor's license than a woman's health. I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to part of a letter I received from a Texas women's health clinic. It states: Please do not make the mistake of thinking that the AMA speaks for all physicians on this issue. It does not speak for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the doctors most intimately concerned with women's reproductive health; it does not speak for the 13,000 members of the American Women's Medical Association; and it does not speak for us, doctors who provide abortions to the women who need them. Less than a year ago the President made it clear that he will veto any bill that does not pass the test of the four women who visited him in his office, explaining that the procedure we are discussing today was necessary to preserve their health, their lives, and their reproductive ability. This bill fails that test once more. It is not the role of Congress to determine the appropriateness of medical procedures. The doctor-patient relationship has been accepted as totally private in this country. Congress is inserting itself into the most private of decisions, and saying that we are more competent than our women and their doctors to make medical judgments. As one of the few Members of Congress with a background in public health, I can tell the Members this most assuredly is not the case. I would like to read from a letter dated October 3 from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. They state: This organization, representing 38,000 physicians dedicated to improving women's health, continues to oppose the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, and urges the House of Representatives to reject this legislation. These physicians believe that H.R. 1122, as amended, continues to represent an inappropriate, ill-advised, and dangerous intervention into a medical decision. The amended bill still fails to include an exception for the protection of the health of the woman. Further, the amended bill still violates a fundamental principle at the very heart of the doctor- patient relationship: that the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based on what the patient's individual circumstances are, must choose the most appropriate method of care for the patient. This bill removes decisionmaking about medical appropriateness from the physician and from the patient. This bill is vague and broad. With the potential to restrict other techniques in obstetrics and gynecology, it fails to use recognized medical terminology and fails to define explicitly the prohibited medical techniques it criminalizes. Moreover, the ban applies to all stages of pregnancy. It thus would have a chilling effect on medical behavior and decisionmaking with a potential to outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. Let us defeat this rule and defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I intend to offer an amendment that would make in order the Hoyer amendment, which was the same language offered by Senator Daschle during Senate consideration. It would ban all postviability abortions except where continuation of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or risk grievous injury to her health. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, to defeat the previous question, and also to get rid of those Senate amendments to H.R. 1122. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman whether it bothers him at all as a physician that the Congress of the United States is outlawing for the first time and making a Federal crime a medical procedure?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to James E. Dewhirst, president and CEO of the Friendly Organization in Rochester, NY, who on October 21, 1997 will complete 2 years as chairman of the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging. Through his work with the Friendly Organization, his active participation in aging-services organizations on the local, State, and national level, and countless hours of community service, Jim Dewhirst is truly making a considerable difference in the lives of many older Americans. Dr. Dewhirst joined the Friendly Organization in May 1981 as assistant administrator of the Friendly Home and manager of the Eighty- One Linden Avenue Apartments--now known as Linden Knoll. In July 1985, he was appointed administrator of the Friendly Organization. He served in this capacity until April 1989, when he was appointed to the position of president and chief executive officer. Jim Dewhirst's accomplishments at the Friendly Organization and his exemplary leadership in aging organizations in his community, State, and Nation have been wide and varied. His efforts have positioned the Friendly Organization to be not only a current leader but a visionary in the delivery of long-term care. A community activist, he has served as a board member of both the Rochester chapter of the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association and Monroe County Long Term Care, an organization dedicated to finding innovative long-term care solutions. He has served as vice chairman and treasurer of the Rochester Area Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, and he held positions as board member, treasurer, and chairman-elect of the New York Association of Homes and Services for the Aging. In 1990, Mr. Dewhirst received the Thomas Clarke Memorial Award as ``Young Administrator of the Year'' from the New York Association of Homes and Services for the Aging. In 1992, Rochester Area Multiple Sclerosis honored him with the Community Award for Volunteer Service. He is widely recognized and respected as a leader and innovator whose guidance and dedication stand as a national model of outstanding service to the elderly and others in need. On October 21, at the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging's 36th annual meeting and exposition in New Orleans, Mr. Dewhirst will complete his term as the organization's chairman, after having served as its top elected leader since 1995. Prior to that, he served with distinction in the association's house of delegates and as a member of its board of directors for 7 years. As immediate past chairman, he will continue to serve on the board as it strives to advance the association's vision, adopted under Mr. Dewhirst's leadership. That vision, which the association's 5,000 not-for-profit member espouse, calls for the development of a comprehensive system of care and services that recognizes the dignity of all persons and enhances the quality of life for older adults and others with special needs. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor and pleasure to congratulate James E. Dewhirst on 2 exemplary years as chairman of the National Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, and on his most distinguished record of service to older Americans.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra]. (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick], a member of the committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].