The House Debate

Abortion and the Telecom Bill

Lawyers tell me do not be so quick about saying this is not constitutional

Mrs. SCHROEDER I must say if this bill is being brought to the floor under sunshine and happiness, I am not happy. I think this rule should be defeated. I think it is outrageous this rule is waiving the 3 days so that we can look at it. I was on the conference committee, and at 7:40 a.m. this morning was the first time I got the full bill. Let me show you what was attached to it. These are the proposed technical corrections. This is page 1, this is page 2, this is page 3, this is page 4, this is page 5, and this is page 6. We have six little pages of technical corrections. Now maybe the rest of you are quicker than I am, but we have been trying desperately to go through all of this and figure out what these six pages of technical corrections are really going to do to this bill, and because we do not have 3 days, we have until probably about an hour and a half from now, that is it, and I think when you are talking about a seventh of the economy, when you are talking about something that is trillions of dollars...We would like to know what this means, and the idea of "trust us, hurry out and vote," I think is wrong...I am getting paid to be here, and to be here and study this, and I would hope that we know what is in it before we vote for it. For all of those who think they know all of this and this is fine and this is terrific, let me tell you about one of the things that we stumbled over as we looked at this page upon page of corrections and stuff. We came across section 1462, which I think very few people know is even in this bill. What it says is absolutely devasting to women. What we are going to do is put on a high-technology gag rule with criminal penalties. Have a nice day. Yes, let me read what this brings into the law through one of these little things. It says that any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion or for any indecent or immoral use or for any written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of those giving any kind of information directly or indirectly, no matter what it means, this is going to be deemed a Federal penalty, a Federal crime, if you transmit any of this over the Internet. Now, this is a gag rule that is off the charts. One of the major things people wanted to use Internet for was telemedicine. Does that mean anything dealing with women's reproductive parts they cannot do this? There will be people standing up and saying, "Oh, Schroeder, cool off, that will never be considered constitutional." Well, if we are going to vote for things we think are not constitutional and we are going to do it in this fast a pace, we ought to give at least part of our salary to the judges. We are just going to mess everything up over here and send it over to them. I do not think so. Let me tell you what lawyers tell me. Lawyers tell me do not be so quick about saying this is not constitutional; there was a pre-1972 case that upheld the constitutionality of this. And, second, we are talking about an international Internet. That is what our companies want to get on. And we have now seen one case with Germany talking about standards and what they want, and this, I think, would only give some international gravitas to limiting what you can say about women's reproductive health in and around the Internet no matter which side of this issue you were on. I just think, why can we not have a little technical amendment correcting this? I think you are going to hear all sorts of people say we did not intend that, we did not mean it, let us have a colloquy, oh, let us, oh, let us, oh let us. Why can we not fix this? Why are not women in the world important enough if you can have six pages of technical corrections for every other thing you can possibly think of, some megacorporation wants? Why can we not take a deep breath and do this? Does that mean somebody's golf schedule in Florida is going to get upset? I do not know. I must say I am very saddened we are coming to the floor with this rule saying we have to waive the 3-day proposal where we have time to read this and digest this, because I really do not think anybody here could pass a test. I really do not. I was on the conference committee. Let me tell my colleagues, those conference committees were absolutely nonsubstantive. We would all gather in a room, best dressed, the TV camera from C-SPAN II would pan us, that would be the end of it. I really hope people vote "no" on this rule.

Clearly the consumer will be the winner

Mr. STEARNS I say to the gentlewoman from Colorado, I just cannot resist to use your own words, "Oh, Mrs. Schroeder, cool off." Those are your words. You and I were both in the conference committee together. You and I were both there; we voted on the Internet legislation together; and, in fact, I think we voted the same way. What we have here in this bill is satisfactory. In fact, it is superior, and it is something that we all voted together, both Democrats and Republicans. So I am not clear if I understand your argument. Let me just continue with what I was going to say. This follows up my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder], when he talked about Bill Gates, the founder and CEO of Microsoft. This is what he said, my friends: "We are beginning another great journey; we aren't sure where this one will lead us either, but again I am certain this revolution will touch even more lives. The major changes coming will be in the way people communicate with each other. The benefits arising from this opportunity and this revolution will be greater, greater than brought by the PC revolution. We are on the verge of a bold new era of communications." I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule so that this body may have the unique chance to ensure this country's ability to realize the great potential of the dynamic communications revolution that Mr. Gates speaks about. Today we have this opportunity, because the Republican majority has brought forth a bill that is important not only for the industry but for this country. Mr. Gates is right when he says this revolution will touch even more lives in addition to creating new jobs in the communications industry. It will have a dramatic impact on consumers. It will bring about benefits of greater choice, of new and exciting communications services with lower prices and even higher quality. Americans will have greater access to information and education than ever before. Clearly the consumer will be the winner. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule on this legislation that will take the American consumers and customers further than they ever imagined.

This Congress has systematically whittled away at a woman's right to choose to such a degree it has been virtually destroyed

Ms. SLAUGHTER We are not sure what we are unleashing here. But I am rising in objection today to at least another measure to restrict women's constitutional rights that has appeared in this bill. I am referring to section 507 of the Communications Act of 1995 that would prohibit the exchange of information regarding abortion over the Internet. I ask you, is the abortion issue going to be attached and is it at all germane to this bill? This is the 22d vote of the 104th Congress on abortion-related legislation that has whittled away at the constitutional and legal rights of American women. Today we have the opportunity to pass a widely supported bipartisan telecommunications bill. Instead of focusing on the important issues at hand, we are being forced again for the 22d time during Congress to vote on a measure to further reduce women's constitutional rights. Abortion is a legal procedure. To prohibit discussion of it on the Internet is clearly a violation of first amendment rights. The penalties involved are severe. If an unknowing person were to even bring up the topic on the Internet, the penalty would be 5 years imprisonment; 10 years for a second or subsequent charge, even for the mention of the word. I want the American people to know that this Congress has systematically whittled away at a woman's right to choose to such a degree it has been virtually destroyed. If it is to be Federal policy that every conception will result in birth, then the Federal Government must also assume responsibility for children. We must assume the responsibility to provide for the emotional, the educational needs, and the financial well-being of every child. This Congress has expressed no interest in assuming responsibility for children. Instead, measures have been proposed and many have passed that further rescind the current limited Federal obligations to the children of the United States. There have been drastic cuts to the earned income tax credit for working parents with children, to Head Start, to nutrition, and to health programs. These are the very programs that address the needs of the poor and disadvantaged children. The implication in this Congress is that once a child is born, we really do not care what happens to it. That child may starve, may be abused, or even be beaten to death, and, in the case of the Northeast, may freeze to death because hearing assistance for the poor has now been taken away. The only thing that matters is that the child be born. After that, it is somebody else's problem. This prohibition to rights of privacy and to the first amendment rights does not belong in this bill.

Who knew that that noxious abortion portion was in the conference report?

Mr. CONYERS I would like to begin by congratulating the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] for supporting my discussion last night in the Committee on Rules, when the Congress had finished its work, when we found out that this conference report would be brought forward today in less than 24 hours, violating the most time- honored rule in the procedures of bringing legislation to this House. The same rule that Speaker Gingrich has spoken with great passion about; the same rule that the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, chairman of the Committee on Rules, has preached to me about across the years, this rule is now being violated for reasons that I cannot fathom. Let me make it clear that this is the most important 111 pages in a conference report in terms of economic consideration that my colleagues will ever in their careers deal with. The fact of the matter is that there are very few, if any, persons that have read, not to mention understand, what is in the report. That is why we have a 3-day rule layover.... But ask this question, as I urge my colleagues to return this rule to the committee: Who knew that that noxious abortion portion was in the conference report? Nobody, until it was found out about last night. Who knows many of the other provisions, I have a whole list of them here, that could not possibly be known about, much less understood in terms of their implications? The reason that we honor the 3-day rule is simply because there are no amendments possible on a conference report. We can only vote it up or down. We should have a 3-week delay on this measure, since we are going out this afternoon. So 3 days would be a very modest consideration. That is why I am asking that this measure be returned to the Committee on Rules for the observation of the 3-day rule.

Mrs. LOWEY I would like to bring to your attention one section that is very troubling to me. Section 507 amends the preexisting section of the Criminal Code (18 U.S.C. 1462) and applies it to the Internet. Now, it was my understanding that your intent behind adopting this provision was to place reasonable restrictions on obscenity and indecency on the Internet. I support this goal. However, a section of this act may be construed to curb discussions about abortion. It seems to me this provision would certainly be unconstitutional.

This language in no way is intended to inhibit free speech about the topic of abortion

Mr. HYDE I certainly agree with the gentlewoman that any discussion about abortion, both pro-life and pro-abortion rights, is protected by the first amendment guarantee of free speech; and I certainly agree, nothing in title V should be interpreted to inhibit free speech about the topic of abortion. Further, it is correct that our principal intent in adopting this provision was to curb the spread of obscenity and indecency, speech that is not protected by the first amendment, from the Internet in order to protect our children. Mrs. LOWEY. With that assurance, I feel comfortable supporting this bill, and I hope that my colleagues who were also concerned about this provision will now feel comfortable supporting this bill. I thank the gentleman for clarifying this point and for his hard work on this bill. Mr. HYDE. ...Concerns have been raised about the amendment to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1462 regarding an interactive computer service. Section 1462 generally prohibits the importation or transportation of obscene matter... We are talking about the advertisement, sale or procurement of drugs or medical instruments or devices, used to bring about an abortion. This language in no way is intended to inhibit free speech about the topic of abortion, nor in any way to limit medical or scientific discourse on the Internet. This amendment to subsection 1462(c) does not prohibit serious discussions about the moral questions surrounding abortion, the act of abortion itself, or the constitutionality of abortion. This statutory language prohibits the use of an interactive computer service for the explicit purpose of selling, procuring or facilitating the sale of drugs, medicines or other devices intended for use in producing abortions. The statutory language is confined to those commercial activities already covered in section 1462(c) of title 18 and in no way interferes with the freedom of individuals to discuss the general topic of abortion on the Internet. Finally, section 508 will protect kids from sexual predators by making it a crime -- punishable by up to 10 years in prison -- for anyone to use a facility in interstate commerce, including a computer, to induce or solicit a child under 18 to engage in prostitution or other illegal sexual activity... In short, as American advances into the 21st century, this telecommunications legislation is tremendously important. It is my firm belief that this bill means more jobs for Americans and will greatly enhance American competitiveness worldwide. It is high time that we replace this overly restrictive consent decree with a statute that recognizes the telecommunications realities of the 1990's. I intend to support the conference report on S. 652 because it will accomplish these goals.

It is kind of interesting to me that we had time for all these other technical corrections, but we did not have time to clear up something that nobody intended to do

Mrs. SCHROEDER I just want to say that I really do want to find some way that I could vote for this, but ever since I was in law school, I always learned I should be prepared, and I should read what it is I am voting on. I am standing here to say to my colleagues there is no way in the world that I can read fast enough to get through these 6 pages of technical corrections that we received today, single-spaced, by the way, and the bill, and put it all together and have any idea what I am really reading. So I am very upset that we would waive that 3-day period, move forward, and so forth. One example of the type of things that we might uncover, let us hope that this is the only thing in there, that there would be nothing else that we would uncover, but this little nugget that we uncovered about referencing in the old Comstock Act that people have been talking about, and that the gentleman, our chairman from Illinois and the gentlewoman from New York just had the colloquy about, was one very major thing that everybody said, oh, we did not intend to do this. Oh, my goodness, how did this happen? It is kind of interesting to me that we had time for all these other technical corrections, but we did not have time for a technical correction to clear up something that nobody intended to do, yet we are going to have everybody confused about what in the world is it we really meant as we did this. And my problem is, we can have an agreement that abortion, the word abortion, the big A word, is protected speech under the Constitution, which I certainly agree with. But the question is what happens when you go on the Internet internationally? Does the Constitution go internationally? Does it follow you through the lines? I am not sure. Telemedicine is one of the things we had hoped we would be able to move out and move into as a big area. What does all of this mean vis-a- vis that? We do not have an answer. Furthermore, unfortunately on this act, there is a decision that came down pre-1972 saying this act is constitutional. So we may have a colloquy saying, "I hope it isn't constitutional," we have got a decision saying it is constitutional. I do not know. I do not have time to go do all of that work in this period of time we have before we are to vote on it. But I think that it is not a good idea to rush this through when it is such a significant part of our economy, and we are now seeing this gag rule come through which we hope is not a gag rule, but it might be a gag rule, and we do not know what the other 6 pages of single-spaced things might hold, too. I do not know what happened to being thoughtful. It is only the 1st day of February. Do we really have to take the whole rest of the month off? Could we not read and understand this? Because we are coming up with things that we are going to live by and we are going to be held by for the next 50 years. This is a sad day, and I am only sorry that we could not know more things about it.

Front Page