[Pages H9040-H9073]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 1999

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 313 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 313

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2436) to amend title 18, United States Code,
and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn
children from assault and murder, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of
order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply
with clause 3(b) of the rule XIII are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider
as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. No amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a
request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce
to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the 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
purpose of debate only.
Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule
for H.R. 2436, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The rule waives
points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply
with 3(b) of rule XIII, requiring the inclusion in the report of any
record votes on a motion to report, or on any amendment to a bill
reported from committee.
The rule provides 2 hours of general debate equally divided among the
chairman and ranking minority Member of the Committee on Judiciary.
The rule makes in order the Committee on Judiciary amendment in the
nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill for
purposes of amendment, which shall be considered as read. The rule
makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules
report accompanying this resolution.
The rule provides that amendments made in order may be offered only
in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report and shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject
to amendment, shall not be subject to the demand for a division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
The rule permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
This is a fair rule which will permit thorough discussion of all of
the relevant issues. Indeed, after 2 hours of debate and consideration
of the Democrat substitute amendment, we will be more than ready to
vote on H.R. 2436. This is not a complex issue.
Mr. Speaker, on September 12, 1996 Gregory Robbins, an Air Force
enlisted man wrapped his fist in a T-shirt and brutally beat his
pregnant 18-year-old wife. Soon after, his young wife gave birth to a
stillborn 8-month-old fetus.
To their surprise and disappointment, the Air Force prosecutors
concluded that, although they could charge Gregory Robbins with simple
assault, they could not charge him in the death of the couple's child.
Why? Because Federal murder laws do not recognize the unborn.

{time} 1230

A criminal can beat a pregnant woman in her stomach to kill the baby
and the law ignores her pregnancy. This is wrong and it has to be
stopped.
Fortunately, 24 States have adopted laws that protect pregnant women
from assaults by abusive boyfriends and husbands, and now it is time
for the Federal Government to do the same.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would make it a Federal crime to
attack a pregnant woman in order to kill or injure her fetus. The bill
would apply only in cases where the underlying assault is, in and of
itself, a Federal crime, such as attacks by military personnel or
attacks on Federal property.
This bill, introduced by my good friend, the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham), should have the support of everyone in Congress,
whether they are pro-life, such as myself, or pro-choice. We should all
agree to protect young women from forced, cruel, and painful abortions.
All we have to do is ask the woman who just lost her child after a
violent attack. It is not the same thing as a simple assault. Clearly,
it is more serious and more emotionally jarring, and it should be
treated accordingly.
Just a few months ago, in Charlotte, North Carolina, we had a man
murder his pregnant wife in a child custody dispute. The incident would
not have been covered by H.R. 2436, it would be covered by the State
law, but it is a reminder that we are talking about a

[[Page H9041]]

real problem here that is increasingly happening more and more.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and
to support the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), for yielding me this
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I strongly oppose the modified closed rule on H.R. 2436. On an issue
as important as this, we should hear the voice of every Member of the
House without the limitations imposed by the majority on the committee.
During consideration of the rule yesterday, a motion was made for an
open rule, but it was defeated.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the underlying bill, the
so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This dangerous legislation
would establish penalties for those who harm or terminate a pregnancy
at any stage of development, either knowingly or unknowingly, while
committing a Federal crime. This bill would create the first Federal
law that recognizes a fertilized egg an independent victim of a crime
and gives it the same legal right as people who are born.
The bill marks a major departure from existing Federal law and
threatens to erode the foundations of the right to choose as recognized
in the 1973 Roe versus Wade decision. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, should the
Senate take up this bill, which is most unlikely, it will be vetoed.
Under H.R. 2436, the fetus has the same or more legal status as the
pregnant woman. Recognizing the fetus as having the same legal rights
independent of the pregnant woman makes it possible to use those rights
against her. This bill would put the woman and the fetus in conflict
and could place the health, worth, and dignity of women on a lower
level.
The supporters suggest that they are advancing this bill in an effort
to combat domestic violence. If that is true, it is at best an awkward
and at worst a dangerous effort. If the supporters of this legislation
are so interested in stopping violence against women, I stand ready to
join them in a vigorous effort to bring to the floor the Violence
Against Women Act and Violence Against Women Act II. Yesterday, at the
Committee on Rules, I made such a motion, but it was defeated.
The supporters of the bill insist that H.R. 2436 has nothing to do
with the abortion debate and was crafted to protect women against
violence. Why then, one is left to wonder, was this bill referred not
to the Subcommittee on Crime but, instead, to the Subcommittee on the
Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary?
It is the Constitution which provides the foundation for a woman's
protection of her right to choose. And despite what we hear to the
contrary, this bill is the hammer striking a chisel against that
foundation.
Are we sickened and outraged by attacks on pregnant women that cause
harm or miscarriage? To the depths of our souls. Situations such as the
one in Arkansas, where a husband hired three youths to beat his wife so
she would miscarry, deserve the contempt of our society and the full
measure of justice our legal system can muster. But this can be done by
prosecuting a defendant for an assault on the woman, provisions that
might be addressed in the Violence Against Women Act.
Members of the Committee on the Judiciary are working courageously to
thwart this attack. My friends and colleagues, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)
will offer a substitute which makes it a Federal crime to assault a
pregnant woman. If it is violence against women, including pregnant
women, which we are trying to stop, then the Lofgren substitute is the
only reasonable alternative before us today.
Otherwise, the underlying bill is nothing more than another scheme to
advance the Christian Coalition and National Right to Life's agenda to
destroy Roe versus Wade and, in fact, they boast as much on their net
as to how they drafted the bill.
This measure aims to chip away at a woman's reproductive freedom
under the guise of fighting crime. I will continue to fight the
leadership's efforts to turn back the clock on women's rights and
reproductive health.
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the Department of Justice opposes this
bill, and it will be vetoed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time.
Not to be repetitious, but I do want to emphasize what she said in
her opening statement; that this is certainly a bill that, I believe
regardless of whether we might be pro-choice or pro-life, we can
support. Because what we are talking about here in the underlying bill,
and certainly I support this rule that we are talking about right now,
is a law that would protect not only the mother of the child but also
that unborn child.
Just imagine, my colleagues, the horrible scene where a woman, who
might be 4 or 5 months pregnant, is attacked by her husband, and who
shot her five times as she sat in the car, killing both the mother and
the unborn child in this particular instance. That gruesome scene
actually happened to a woman in Charlotte, North Carolina. I think
there has already been reference to her, but there are countless other
stories with the same ending.
It is a sad commentary on our society when someone takes the life of
a pregnant woman as well as her unborn child and does not face any type
of retribution or punishment or even deterrent for taking the life of
that unborn child. That is because under current laws this type of
crime does not protect the life of the unborn child, even if the mother
survives.
This bill is especially important for those women who suffer from
domestic abuse and the amount of violence they endure despite carrying
a child. This bill addresses those issues and protects the unborn
child. The legislation holds these violent criminals liable for any
injuries and harm forced upon the child during the incident involving a
Federal crime committed against the mother.
Members of this Congress, this is a common-sense bill. This is a way
to create a separate law to protect an unborn child from any physical
harm or some act of violence which causes permanent damage or death.
The bill would also follow the lead of so many States already who have
adopted laws which give legal protection to those children. Criminal
convictions in these States have been upheld, and none of these
statutes have been found to be unconstitutional.
While looking at this particular bill, keep in mind that there are
Federal statutes concerning the killing or injuring of endangered
plants and animals. If this argument against this legislation is
centered around the issue of viability of the fetus and whether a child
would have the capability to live outside the womb, then we should look
at this issue of endangered species. Do we consider the viability, in
that case of a plant or animal? Or even in the case of an American
eagle, do we consider the viability of that egg, or whatever it might
be, under the endangered species, which itself, the endangered species
law, provides a punishment of up to $50,000. We have a criminal fine
for the destruction of plants and animals, and we do not talk about
viability there. Yet that will be a distinction that is made today when
we are talking about an unborn child.
If I might say, the other unfortunate part of this issue that will be
raised in opposition to the bill is that some might argue that it will
be unconstitutional. As I said earlier, there have been a number of
States who have passed similar bills where the constitutionality has
not been overruled.
I even think about other issues in this Congress where, even as
recently as 2 weeks ago, when we talked about campaign finance reform,
the argument was made by some who opposed that, that it might be
unconstitutional. I think we heard some of those same people say that
that does not matter that we need to pass this bill and get campaign
reform. I think we will hear today some of those same people say that
this is not constitutional. So it is certainly an inconsistent argument
on their part.

[[Page H9042]]

I would simply close by again urging my colleagues to put aside what
might become the rhetoric of a pro-life, pro-choice vote, what might
try to be cast as an abortion vote, and look at the realities of this
and the absolute need at the Federal level to establish legislation,
which, in addition to protecting a person from these types of violent
crimes, also protects the unborn child in that person's womb. We need
to add additional punishment for that, to have a separate offense for
that; and, in that way, we might deter. And all criminal laws are
designed to do just that, in addition to punishment. They are designed
to deter that type of conduct which everybody in this House disagrees
with and does not support.
So I urge all my colleagues to set aside the rhetoric of abortion and
pro-life and pro-choice and do what is right in this instance.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 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. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time, and I rise to say
that I recognize the dilemma my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle face. The dilemma is that Roe versus Wade is the law of the land.
No doubt, having listened to testimony yesterday in the
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, there is no lack of
sympathy and understanding and empathy for the outrageous violence that
occurs against women almost daily and, in fact, by the minute: violence
against women in the workplace, sexual violence, and domestic violence.
I am outraged, and I think all women have a great deal of empathy for
the unchecked or unfettered violence that occurs even with the very
unanimously supported legislation like the Violence Against Women Act.
But this particular legislation, Mr. Speaker, finds many of us at
odds with the intent of the proponents. And it is not because we are
not empathetic and sympathetic to the crisis and the tragedy that
occurs when a pregnant woman is attacked, and not because we do not
want to find relief, but because this bill, unfortunately, wants to be
a side bar or a back-door response to some of our colleagues'
opposition to Roe versus Wade.
This bill undermines a woman's right to choose by recognizing for the
first time under Federal law that an embryo or fetus is a person, with
rights separate and equal to that of a woman and worthy of legal
protection. And the bill does not establish the time frame. The Supreme
Court has held that fetuses are not persons within the meaning of the
14th Amendment. If enacted, H.R. 2436 will improperly inject debates
about abortion into Federal and military criminal prosecutions across
the country.
Now, the sponsors claim that this is a moderate crime bill that has
nothing to do with abortion because it exempts from prosecution legal
abortion, medical treatment, and the conduct of women. However, when
pressed during the Committee on the Judiciary debate, the bill's
proponents candidly admitted that their purpose is to recognize the
existence of a separate legal person where none currently exists.
Their argument also goes against most of the forward thinking
prosecutors in our Nation who have been able to find and substantiate
claims of those who have assaulted women who happen to be pregnant and
who have done the heinous and ugly attack of specifically attacking the
pregnant woman in order to eliminate the life of the fetus.

{time} 1245

So I would say to the Speaker, we are dithering around on this bill
and I would hope that we did not even have to have this bill on the
floor of the House. Because I, too, want to stop the violence against
women and, by necessity, the violence against a pregnant woman. I, too,
promote life and the sanctity of life in terms of the view of the
importance of that pregnancy that that woman is carrying. But this is
on dangerous ground.
Constituents of mine have written me to urge in opposition because
this bill, which is quickly working its will through the House, said
one constituent from Houston, will create a new separate criminal
offense. It is an unprecedented attempt to grant the same legal status
to all stages of the prenatal development as that of a woman. This is
anything but a moderate bill.
By setting up the fetus as a separate legal entity, the sponsors of
the bill are setting up the foundation to dismantle and undermine Roe
versus Wade. This bill fails to address the very real need for strong
Federal legislation to prevent and punish violent crimes against women,
such as the hate crimes legislation, on which my colleagues will not
even move, Mr. Speaker, because that has added gender to the provisions
of hate crime.
I had one member of the Committee on the Judiciary say, why do we not
want to do that? Would that not be something against the drunken
husband who comes home and beats up the wife, he would be considered a
hate crime proponent? All excuses not to pass the hate crimes. That
letter, by the way, is by Ken Roberts of Houston, Texas.
The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence argues vigorously
against this legislation. The Professional Association of Business
Women, likewise, I think reasonable constituencies, who themselves
understand when we are truly supporting legislation that is in
opposition to the violence against women.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me simply say this is a bad bill. I
wish it was not here. Procedurally it is bad. But more importantly, it
is attempting, through a back-door way, of undermining Roe versus Wade.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my
opposition to the rule of this bill, the ``Unborn Victims of Crime
Act.'' This rule closes all needed debate amongst the concerned members
of this House and is a veiled attempt to move forward with the creation
of a legal status for the unborn. While we would all like to protect
pregnant women and the fetus from intentional harm by others, this bill
seeks to create a legal status that will give anti-abortion advocates a
back door to overturning current law. If the proponents are serious
about protecting the fetus and the mother, they will support the
Democratic substitute, which is not a blatant attack against Roe versus
Wade.
Although I believe that the cosponsors of this bill may have had good
intentions when it was introduced, the practical effect of this
legislation would effectively overturn 25 years of law concerning the
right of a woman to choose. I, too, abhor the results of a brutalized
woman suffering the loss of her pregenacy--but let's fight this by
fighting violence against women.
I sympathize with the mothers who have lost fetuses due to the
intentional violent acts of others. Clearly in these situations, a
person should receive enhanced penalties for endangering the life of a
pregnant woman. In those cases where the woman is killed, the effect of
this crime is a devastating loss that should also be punished as a
crime against the pregnant woman.
However, any attempt to punish someone for the crime of harming or
killing a fetus should not receive a penalty greater than the
punishment or crime for harming or killing the mother. By enhancing the
penalty for the loss of the pregnant woman, we acknowledge that within
her was the potential for life. This can be done without creating a new
category for unborn fetuses.
A new status of ``human-ness'' extended to the unborn fetus of a
pregnant woman creates a situation of constitutional uneasiness. While
the proponents of this bill claim that the bill would not punish women
who choose to terminate their pregnancies, this bill will give anti-
abortion advocates a powerful tool against women's choice.
The state courts that have expressed an opinion on this issue have
done so with the caveat that while Roe protects a woman's
constitutional right to choose, it does not protect a third party's
destruction of a fetus.
This will create a slippery slope that will result in doctors being
sued for performing abortions, especially if the procedure is
controversial, such as partial birth abortion. Although this bill
exempts abortion procedures as a crime against the fetus, the potential
for increased civil liability is present.
Supporters of this bill should address the larger issue of domestic
violence. For women who are the victims of violence by a husband or
boyfriend, this bill does not address the abuse, but merely the result
of that abuse.
If we are concerned about protecting a fetus from intentional harm
such as bombs and other forms of violence, then we also need to be just
as diligent in our support for women who are victimized by violence.
In the unfortunate cases of random violence, we need to strengthen
some of our

[[Page H9043]]

other laws, such as real gun control and controlling the sale of
explosives. These reforms are more effective in protecting life than
this bill.
I urge my Colleagues to vote against the rule. We need an informed
debate on this bill that would provide special status to unborn
fetuses. A better alternative is to create a sentence enhancement for
any intentional harm done to a pregnant woman. This bill is simply a
clever way of creating a legal status to erode abortion rights.

Texas Federation of Business and Professional Women's
Clubs, Inc.,
Corpus Christi, TX, September 29, 1999.

Re H.R. 2436, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Lee: As the legislation chair for the
approximately 3000 members of BPW/Texas (The Texas Federation
of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc.), I am
writing to you to urge you to oppose H.R. 2436, the ``Unborn
Victims of Violence Act.'' This bill which is quickly working
its way through the House, would create a new separate
criminal offense to punish anyone that injures or causes the
death of a fetus during the commission of a federal crime.
H.R. 2436 is an unprecedented attempt to grant the same
legal status to all stages of prenatal development as that of
the woman. The bill is designed to chip away at the
foundation of a woman's right to choose as set forth in Roe
v. Wade.
Under this bill, someone could be prosecuted for harming a
fetus, regardless of whether or not the same person is
prosecuted for harming the mother. While we fully support
efforts to punish acts of violence against women that injure
or terminate a pregnancy, we believe that the sponsors of
this legislation are not trying to protect women. Instead, we
believe that the sponsors are seeking to advance their anti-
choice agenda by altering federal law to elevate the fetus to
an unprecedented status.
This is anything but a moderate bill. By setting up the
fetus as a separate legal entity, the sponsors of this bill
are setting up the foundation to dismantle Roe v. Wade. Our
members support reproductive choice and this bill establishes
the foundation to limit woman's reproductive choices.
Furthermore, this bill fails to address the very real need
for strong federal legislation to prevent and punish violent
crimes against women.
We urge you to vote against H.R. 2436, the ``Unborn Victims
of Violence Act.''
Sincerely,
Annette DuVall,
BPW/Texas Legislation Chair.
____

Houston, TX.
Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Jackson-Lee: I am writing to urge you
to oppose H.R. 2436, the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act.''
This bill, which is quickly working its way through the
House, would create a new, separate criminal offense to
punish anyone that injures or causes the death of a fetus
during the commission of a federal crime.
H.R. 2436 is an unprecedented attempt to grant the same
legal status to all stages of prenatal development as that of
the woman. Under this bill, someone could be prosecuted for
harming a fetus, regardless of whether or not the same person
is prosecuted for harming the mother. While I fully support
efforts to punish acts of violence against women that injure
or terminate a pregnancy, I believe that the sponsors of this
legislation are not trying to protect women. Instead, I
believe the sponsors are seeking to advance their anti-choice
agenda by altering federal law to elevate the fetus to an
unprecedented status.
This is anything but a moderate bill. By setting up the
fetus as a separate legal entity, the sponsors of this bill
are setting up the foundation to dismantle Roe v. Wade.
Furthermore, this bill fails to address the very real need
fore strong federal legislation to prevent and punish violent
crimes against women.
Sincerely,
Ken Roberts.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, colleague and neighbor
from the Ninth District of North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), for yielding
me the time.
Mr. Speaker, in all due respect to my friend and colleague from
Texas, there is no dilemma here. There is no dilemma at all. We either
care about children or we do not care about children. This bill is
about additional protection for children.
Now, we are not talking about carrying pregnancies. We are not
talking about fetuses. We are talking about a good rule that protects
children. Born and unborn children merit and deserve protection.
The consensus is clear, life begins at conception. This rule and this
bill are not about in any way Roe v. Wade. These are simply protections
for mothers and children.
I support the rule. I support the bill. I want to help educate the
Members of the House today about this piece of legislation. Confusion
is being created about the issue at stake. What is at stake is
prosecution for a criminal injuring a pregnant woman. The Unborn
Victims of Violence Act will create stringent Federal penalties to
protect mothers and children.
The law states that an unborn child who during the commission of a
violent Federal crime suffers bodily injury or death is considered a
victim apart and in addition to harm being done to the mother. It
grants the same Federal protection to unborn children against violence
that already exists for all Americans.
I am having a hard time believing the argument from the other side.
They do not want to pass this bill because it designates the unborn
child as a person. I want to ask them what do they want to happen to
these criminals who knowingly abuse a pregnant woman and who know that
by causing harm to the mother they will ultimately cause harm to the
child? We cannot treat the child as a nonentity.
I would ask the mothers here in Congress on both sides of the aisle,
can they accept that? This legislation supports many of our States who
are passing similar legislation in their State legislatures.
In my home State of North Carolina it is a felony to injure a
pregnant woman and cause her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth.
Let us send a message to our State legislatures that we support
prosecution of violent criminals. This legislation is common sense. Let
us protect mothers. But most of all, let us protect our children, born
and unborn, from harm.
Support the rule. Support the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I agree with the ostensible purpose
of the bill that we will be considering today. If the idea is to have
additional penalties when a woman is harmed who is carrying a child
because that person is more vulnerable, because the harm to them is
greater, I agree. That is why I am supporting the Lofgren substitute.
But let us be very honest here. There is a true purpose and, frankly,
the sponsors of the legislation stated that true purpose in committee
and that is to undermine Roe versus Wade.
The previous speaker articulately pointed out that we should be
protecting children. Well, I am not sure he has actually had an
opportunity to read who it is that we are protecting in this bill. We
are protecting ``a member in any stage of development who is carried in
the womb.''
But frankly, I would like to address my remarks to not those who have
already a position on whether they believe Roe versus Wade should or
should not be undermined. If they believe that there should be
increased penalties for people who commit this type of crime to a
woman, then they can vote for the Lofgren substitute. The Lofgren
substitute, frankly, has the exact same penalty in total years as the
base bill. If they want someone to go away for life, the Lofgren
substitute will do that.
And the sponsors, frankly, agreed in questioning during markup that
their objective was not that. I pointedly asked the sponsor, I said,
listen, if they have the same exact crime and the penalty meted out by
the courts is life in prison without the opportunity for parole in both
cases, would they be satisfied with the Lofgren substitute? And the
answer was no. Because the true intention is to establish this new
subterfuge to undermine Roe versus Wade.
But for those of us in this House who want to ease prosecution, I
would tell them definitely do not support the base bill, support the
Lofgren substitute. Can my colleagues imagine any prosecutor in this
Nation who is going to want the choice-of-life debate getting in the
way of deliberations on a murder in an assault case, having that float
over these debates? Well, that is what will happen if the base bill
becomes law and not the Lofgren substitute.

[[Page H9044]]

For all of my colleagues who want to protect women, let us do it, let
us really protect women. Let us try to strike a blow for the nearly one
in three women in this country who are victims of domestic violence. We
should pass laws that focus on that crime. The Lofgren substitute is
one. Violence against women is one. The hate crimes bill is one. These
are things that seek to strike a blow to protect women.
Let us do that. Let us reject this base bill. Support the common
sense Lofgren substitute and support this rule which allows that to
happen.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
for yielding me the time.
It is hard for me to understand the preciseness of this debate
between the majority bill and the minority offering because we really
do not have a disagreement about domestic violence and abuse of women.
We should definitely be focusing on that in this Congress, and in fact
we do on a number of bills.
In fact, there is no question we should be focusing on hate crimes,
as we do frequently not only against kind of the traditional categories
where we have had hate crimes in America and homosexuals and members of
racial minorities, but also the religious persecution that we see
occurring in a number of cases in this country; and legislation has
been introduced in the other body relating to this.
I think we all need to speak out against all sorts of different types
of crimes. But this is a very particular type of crime. It is not an
appendix or a liver we are talking about here. We can argue whether we
believe it is a human being, as I do, from the moment of conception or
whether it is a developing human being. But it is, at the very minimum,
a developing human being inside another person, which puts the mother
more at risk; and this bill addresses that, but it also puts the
developing human being, or the baby, as I believe, at tremendous risk.

In this body, we have not been consistent nor have we been in laws
around the country consistent with how to handle this big dilemma. We
talk about fetal alcohol syndrome and how babies are destroyed by
mothers who become alcoholics and who are alcoholics or abuse alcohol
during the time they are pregnant. We have multi-million-dollar media
campaigns about fetal alcohol syndrome. We have portions of the
population, subgroups who are devastated in many cases by this problem.
When we say that the mother when she drinks a bottle of alcohol has
that compounded because of the weight of the baby and then turn around
and say, oh, but that is not really anything to do with life
afterwards, it is silly. When we talk about crack babies and the
problems when a parent abuses drugs while they have a baby, or
developing baby, at the very minimum, inside their womb, we are
acknowledging that there is a difference here that needs protection.
Part of this legislation arose because a courageous attorney general
in South Carolina pursued this subject there regarding crack babies and
whether there was an accountability for a second, at the very least,
developing baby, but baby as I believe. It is not an appendix.
Otherwise, if it was an appendix, we would not have to have its life
thereafter outside the body affected by the behavior of the mother or
the behavior, in this case, of others who would do damage outside to
the mother.
Because it is not the question. It is part of the question of
additional risks of the mother, but it is also the long-term either
termination of life or damages to the developing baby or, as I believe,
the human being inside the womb who can be affected because of the
callousness, carelessness, meanness, aggressiveness of other people.
We are really, in fact, worrying about two different problems here
simultaneously. One, the higher risk to the mother, and also to the
developing and the little human being inside who will be forever
impacted by the behavior of others.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
the rule and to the underlying bill and in support of the Democratic
Lofgren substitute. It sounds reasonable to punish someone for harming
a pregnant woman. There are many things that we could do to protect
women from violence, but it is quite clear that that is not the intent
of this bill at all. This bill is not about protecting women. It is
about granting legal status to a fetus and undermining Roe v. Wade.
I would like to put this vote in perspective. This is the 129th vote
against choice since the beginning of the 104th Congress. I have
documented each of these votes in a choice report, which is available
on my Web site or by contacting my office.
Congress has acted again and again to eliminate a woman's right to
choose procedure by procedure, restriction by restriction. And,
unfortunately, in some cases they are succeeding. This time they found
a brand new way of chipping away at a woman's right to choose.
Violence against women is a very real problem, a problem that needs
action. But this bill is not about protecting women from violence. This
bill is about advancing the political agenda of the anti-choice
movement.
It is a tragedy when a pregnant woman is victimized and her pregnancy
ends. No one could disagree with that. But why cannot my colleagues in
this Congress focus on preventing women from being victimized in the
first place?
This bill, however, does not focus on the women victimized by
violence. Instead, the legislation draws our attention away from the
woman and focuses only on her pregnancy.
I intend to vote for the Lofgren substitute, which will establish
additional punishments for assaulting a pregnant woman while committing
a crime. Granting legal status to a fetus is not necessary to
accomplish this goal. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the
bill and urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do
something that would actually help pregnant women. If we want to help
pregnant women, let us ensure direct access to OB-GYNs, let us fund the
WIC program, let us support and strengthen the Pregnancy Discrimination
Act or enact a folic acid campaign.
If we want to help pregnant women, let us ensure comprehensive
prenatal care for all pregnant women. If we want to help pregnant
women, let us make sure every pregnancy is a wanted pregnancy by
supplying a full range of contraceptive options for women. We could
also strengthen the day-care system. This does not help. And we can
pass the Violence Against Women Act. Please vote no.

{time} 1300

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Roe versus Wade does give a woman the right to have an abortion. This
bill does not change that right at all. But this bill does protect
women from forced abortions. That is all we are trying to do here.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Myrick). Pursuant to House Resolution
313 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 2436.

{time} 1302

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2436) to amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code
of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder,
and for other purposes, with Mr. LaHood in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.

[[Page H9045]]

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) each will control 60 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the sponsor of this
legislation.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
This is an important debate. It is going to be an emotional debate.
All I ask is that the Members look long and hard at what the statute
does, not what people are trying to claim it does but actually read it.
Take some time to read it, to think about it. If Members have any
questions, I will be glad to try and answer them the best I can.
Let us start with an example of what the intent and purpose of this
bill is trying to do. We will start with an Arkansas case that happened
about a month or two ago. The case involved a man who had a girlfriend,
a former girlfriend, and he tried to persuade her to have an abortion
and she said no, I do not want to have an abortion, and she decided to
carry the child to term. This person, this man, did not want to be
responsible for this child, so when she was in her ninth month in
Arkansas, he allegedly hired three people to go and beat her and kill
her baby, with the express purpose of beating her to the point that she
would lose her child.
Well, they did that. Allegedly they grabbed this woman, took her away
and beat her. She was on the floor begging for her baby's life. She was
not saying, ``Don't terminate my pregnancy, please don't kill my
baby.'' And the allegation goes that one of the assailants said, ``You
don't get it, bitch. Your baby dies tonight.''
There was a CNN program yesterday where the woman was interviewed and
she was talking about how she could hear the heartbeat fade away and
how that affected her. This was a seven-pound baby girl. This cries out
not just for some action, it cries out for severe punishment. What they
are allowed to do in Arkansas, they can now charge these three people
and the man involved who hired them with the crime of murder, because 6
weeks before this event, Arkansas passed a law making it a separate
offense for a criminal to cause the death or injury of an unborn child.
And because of that law, these three thugs and the man that hired them
are facing capital murder charges, not just an additional penalty for
assaulting the woman.
This is not just a loss to the woman. She was not begging, ``Don't
lose something for me,'' she was begging, ``Don't take my baby away,''
something she understood to be separate and apart from her. Without
that law, the three people that were hired to beat her and cause her to
lose her child would never have been prosecuted for what they intended
to do, which was to kill the baby.
Now, what are we trying to do in this statute? We are trying to do
what 24 States have already done in some fashion. Federal law is silent
on this question. This bill only applies to Federal statutes that
already exist. In this bill, if a woman is covered by a Federal statute
and happens to be pregnant and she is assaulted and her baby is injured
or killed, under this statute the Federal prosecutor can bring an
additional charge, that being the loss or the injury to the child in
addition to the assault to the mother. It does not change any State
law, it only applies where Federal law already is in existence by
adding an additional charge like States do, recognizing the entity, the
child, the unborn child, being a separate victim. That is the scope.
That is the purpose.
California has had a similar statute since 1970. There are a lot of
statutes throughout our States that deal with this issue in varying
ways. One thing this bill does, it allows the prosecution to occur at
the moment the embryo is attached to the womb like 11 States. There is
no requirement for viability to be had before the criminal can be
prosecuted. Many States take that tack. Missouri is one of them. Their
statute has been upheld by the Supreme Court as being constitutional
because it did not infringe on Roe versus Wade rights, it only applied
to third-party criminals who assault pregnant women and destroy the
unborn child, recognizing that they could be prosecuted.
This statute is legally sound, and I think it brings Americans
together in this fashion: When the term ``abortion'' is brought up, we
divide as a country. That is not going to change any time soon. There
is a genuine debate and heartfelt views about that. But I believe most
Americans in the Arkansas case would want the criminals prosecuted for
killing that baby. I think most Americans would want the person who
shot the woman five times with a baby inside of her, her child, to be
prosecuted for the two events, assaulting the woman and killing the
child. I think, regardless of pro-life or pro-choice feelings, that
most Americans want to protect the unborn from violence against
criminals, and when a woman chooses to have her child, a criminal
should not take that away from her. It is not just a loss from
sentencing enhancement, it is the taking away of a life.
If Members have got any doubt about Federal law and the unborn, I am
going to read something to them. I hope every Member of Congress will
sit down and think for a moment. The implementation of the death
penalty at the Federal level is covered by section 3596. It talks about
how the death penalty is imposed at the Federal level and under what
manner it can be imposed, but it has a section. Listen to this. Section
3596, Federal law, section B, Pregnant Women. ``A sentence of death
shall not be carried out upon a woman while she is pregnant.'' Why? Why
do we not execute women while they are pregnant if it is just a mere
loss to the woman? She is going to lose her life, why not just go ahead
and do it? Federal law understands that we are not going to kill an
unborn child because of the crimes of her mother.
I would suggest to Members that 99.9 percent of Americans agree with
that concept, and if you tried to execute a woman who was pregnant,
there would be a hue and cry throughout this Nation like you have not
seen or heard ever before. What I am trying to do in this bill is fill
a gap in the Federal law and say this: If the State cannot kill the
unborn child for the crimes of the mother, a criminal who destroys or
injures an unborn child should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of
the law because it is more than a loss to the woman. That is all I am
saying.
Roe versus Wade clearly says that when it comes to the woman choosing
about her pregnancy, that is her decision in the first trimester. This
bill expressly exempts consensual abortions because it is the law of
the land, that that is the right of the woman to choose as to her own
body. This bill does not allow a prosecution of the woman if she takes
drugs or does damage to her own baby. I did not go down that road. The
woman under no circumstances can be prosecuted, nor can medical
personnel. All I am saying is if a pregnant woman is assaulted where
Federal jurisdiction exists already and her baby is destroyed or
injured, the criminal is going to pay a separate debt to society.
So if one of your constituents comes to Capitol Hill and visits you
and while up here, unimaginable things happen, terrible things happen,
they are assaulted and they happen to be pregnant and lose their child,
because this is an exclusive Federal jurisdiction area, this statute
would kick in to allow a prosecution of that criminal who took their
baby away from them when they chose to have it.
I hope that rationality will prevail and that Members will actually
read the statute. We are going to divide the pro-choice and pro-
abortion people today, because abortion has taken a fervor among some
Members that they have lost the view of what is right, fair and common
sense. Let us bring ourselves together and do some good.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I oppose this bill, and I would urge my colleagues in the House, who
believe that Roe versus Wade should be upheld and honored because it
protects the reproductive choice of women in America, to vote against
this bill.
I will offer later today a substitute to the underlying bill that
will accomplish what the author of this bill says he wants to do.
Obviously, I believe

[[Page H9046]]

that it is wrong to assault women. If the assault causes a miscarriage,
that is a grievous harm and deserves to be punished. What the
underlying bill does, however, is to create an unprecedented right for
the fetus that is not permissible under Roe versus Wade. Indeed, it
flies in the face of Roe's holding. More than that, as one speaker
during the discussion of the rule pointed out, should this bill ever
become law, it will be almost impossible for a prosecutor to actually
use this bill in any effort to go after someone who might engage in the
unbelievably odious behavior contemplated by the bill, namely,
assaulting a woman and causing her to miscarry.
I want my colleagues to understand the obvious, that those of us who
oppose the underlying bill do not condone violence against women. To
the contrary, the ranking member the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) asked permission of the Committee on Rules to offer a
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and was denied that
request.
I regret in so many ways that we are once again here divided on the
issue of reproductive choice in America. I believe very strongly that
it is the woman who should make this decision about whether or not to
have a family, and not the U.S. Congress.
I recognize that there are people on the other side of this issue who
have enormously strong religious beliefs that Congress should make that
decision and outlaw reproductive choice.
What bothers me, and what I think is really very sad, is that we
would bring this dispute about reproductive choice that is so heartfelt
into this issue of violence against women. It is unnecessary to do so,
and I am hopeful that as Members listen to the debate today, they can
take a look at the substitute that the Ranking Member and I will offer
so that we can come together for once--instead of continuing to divide
over this very emotional issue. I look forward to outlining in some
detail at a later time in this debate the substitute that I will offer.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
What we are talking about here should not be controversial. This
legislation is long overdue, a Federal law that simply holds violent
criminals liable for conduct that injures or kills an unborn child.
I would like to cite one particularly disturbing example of a
homicide of an unborn child that occurred in my hometown of Cincinnati
back in 1997. On the day before Thanksgiving, 1997, in a classic case
of road rage, a woman forced the car of Rene Andrews that she was
driving off the road and into a parked truck. Mrs. Andrews was
seriously injured, and tragically the baby she was carrying died as a
result of that accident. Mrs. Andrews has never recovered fully from
the crash. The simple explanation offered by the perpetrator of this
heinous act was that Mrs. Andrews had allegedly cut off the woman in
traffic.

{time} 1315

Just 2 months earlier, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base an airman
assaulted his wife who was 8 months pregnant with her daughter,
Jasmine. He covered his fist with a tee shirt and beat her in the face
and abdomen. As a result of this beating, the woman's uterus ruptured
and expelled Jasmine into her abdominal cavity. Baby Jasmine died
before taking her first breath outside the womb.
Both of these cases are tragic, Mr. Chairman, but they have another
important factor in common. Both deaths were successfully prosecuted
under Ohio's unborn victims law. The Cincinnati woman was convicted of
aggravated vehicular homicide, and the man was convicted of involuntary
manslaughter for the death of his child. I am proud that my home State
of Ohio recognizes the aggravated death of an unborn child as a crime
separate and apart from the one committed against the mother.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress to do the same, and I want to
thank very much personally all those who have brought this to the
attention of Congress, and I would urge passage of this very important
legislation.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be here today, and I
compliment the authors of the bill and the leadership on the Committee
on the Judiciary on the Republican side for their calm and deliberate
tem- peraments, their civil attitudes, but we have here a problem that
the New York Times has pointed out is a very important part of the
abortion bill debate. We are now going to make a criminal act out of
nonconsensual termination of a pregnancy even if the person that
terminates the pregnancy did not even know that the woman was pregnant.
This will be the first criminal law in which intent will be irrelevant.
It will be murder, Mr. Chairman, but they did not know they were
committing murder.
So I, as a crime fighter myself, am reluctant to oppose the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act, but it is another abortion bill that is being
sold to us as an important criminal law in the making. On its face, the
bill appears to be a tool for protecting pregnant women from assault
and the nonconsensual termination of pregnancy, but on closer
examination, we are chipping away at Roe versus Wade, another stage is
being set for an assault on Roe versus Wade. How? By treating the fetus
and all other stages of gestational development, Mr. Chairman, as a
person with rights and interests distinct from the mother.
That is why I recommend to my colleagues the Lofgren-Conyers
substitute that will come shortly afterward, and I thank the Committee
on Rules for granting it.
So this bill raises profound constitutional issues in that it
implicates a foundational premise of Roe v. Wade. This bill identifies
a fetus as a separate and distinct victim of crime which is
unprecedented as a matter of Federal statute and plunges the Federal
Government into the most difficult and complex issues of religious
matters, of scientific consideration, and into the midst of how a
variety of State approaches already exist in handling the matter. So
there simply can be no argument by anyone that a pregnant woman and her
fetus should be protected from criminal attack through aggressive use
of our criminal laws, and that is what we propose.
So let us admit it, Republican members and supporters of the bill.
Let us confess that we are taking another little few baby steps forward
to eat away at the fundamental premises of Roe versus Wade; and if that
is the case, then this bill does not deserve to be called an exercise
of our criminal jurisdiction in the Committee on the Judiciary.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 2436, the Unborn Victims of Violence
Act. This bill attempts to cloak yet another abortion bill as a
legitimate exercise of our Federal criminal jurisdiction.
On its face, this bill appears to be a tool for protecting pregnant
women from assault and the non-consensual termination of a pregnancy.
On closer examination, however, the bill sets the stage for an assault
on Roe versus Wade through the legislative process by treating the
fetus, and all other stages of gestational development, as a person,
with rights and interests distinct from the mother.
This bill raises profound constitutional issues in that it implicates
a foundational premise of Roe versus Wade. H.R. 2436's identification
of a fetus as a separate and distinct victim of crime is unprecedented
as a matter of federal statute and plunges the federal government into
one of the most--if not the most-difficult and complex issues of
religious and scientific consideration and into the midst of a variety
of State approaches to handling these issues.
There simply can be no argument by anyone that a pregnant women and
her fetus should be protected from criminal attack through the
aggressive use of our criminal laws. For that reason, a majority of
states have statues or court decisions that allow criminal prosecution
and sentencing enhancement for causing death or injury to a developing
pregnancy.
However, despite the fact that a fetus cannot be injured without
inflicting harm to the mother, this bill ignores the interests of the
pregnant women. H.R. 2436 switches our attention from an overt attack
on a women to

[[Page H9047]]

the impact of the crime on the pregnancy--diverting attention from the
issue of domestic violence. The vast majority of attacks on women that
harm pregnancies arise in the context of domestic violence, as the
majority has supplied in amply reference.
If the majority were truly concerned about protecting pregnant women
and preventing harm to developing pregnancies, they would reauthorize
the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (``VAWA''), or mark up the
``Violence Against Women Act of 1999'' (H.R. 357) which expands
protections for women against callous acts of violence regardless of
their pregnancy status.
Recognizing the fetus as an entity with legal rights independent of
the pregnant woman makes it possible to create future fetal rights that
could be used against the pregnant woman.
This is not some idle fear. We already seen some of these measures
introduced at the state level. If this trend continues, pregnant women
would live in constant fear that any accident or ``error'' in judgment
could be deemed ``unacceptable'' and become the basis for a criminal
prosecution by the state or a civil suit by a disenchanted husband or
relative.
Perhaps the most foreboding aspect of allowing increased state
involvement in pregnant women's lives in the name of the fetus is that
the state may impose direct injunctive regulation of women's actions.
Absent an increased awareness of the costs to women's autonomy, these
intrusive fetal rights provisions will almost certainly continue to
expand.
This bill stands as yet another transparent attempt to score points
in the perennial abortion debate. If you care about protecting a fetus,
you must care about protecting the mother. This bill does not enhance
the welfare of mothers; it creates a climate of intrusive government
intervention on their bodies and their reproductive choice.
We should vote no and stop wasting time on regressive, rhetorical
measures like H.R. 2436. Rather than seeking to score points, we invite
the majority to join us in crafting legislation that protects woman and
mothers from violence that threatens all those under their care.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support for the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999 and to commend my friend and
colleague from South Carolina for introducing this important
legislation. This legislation, Mr. Chairman, is simply designed to
narrow the gap in the law by providing that an individual who injures
or kills an unborn child during the commission of federal crimes of
violence will be guilty of a separate offense.
Now my friends on the other side of the aisle raise a couple of
arguments; number one, that there are constitutional problems with
this. Clearly this is not the case. This is virtually proven by the
fact that there are numerous State laws in this regard, none of which
have been seriously challenged or struck down, and they also suggest
that this somehow impacts abortion rights. Clearly that is not the
case. This does not, in fact, impact any current abortion rights.
So these opponents do not make valid points on either of these two
issues. I think in trying to, they only underscore, in my view, their
own extremist position on the issue because the bottom line in this
legislation is about combating violence against pregnant women,
violence against the unborn, and it is about holding violent criminals
accountable for the crimes they commit.
Mr. Chairman, in my view, to oppose this is wrong and is extremist,
so I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to apprise my colleagues of the communication just
received from the Office of the President, a statement of
administration policy. ``The Administration,'' and I quote ``strongly
opposes enactment of H.R. 2436 which would make it a separate Federal
offense to cause `death or bodily injury' to a `child in utero','' and
those phrases are in quotes, ``in the course of committing certain
specified federal crimes. If H.R. 2436 were presented to the President,
his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.''
The statement continues as follows:
``The administration has made the fight against domestic violence and
other violence against women a top priority. The Violence Against Women
Act, which passed with the bipartisan support of Congress in 1994,
marked a critical turning point in our national effort to address
domestic violence and sexual assault. The Violence Against Women Act
for the first time created Federal domestic violence offenses with
strong penalties to hold violent offenders accountable. To date, the
Department of Justice has brought 179 Violence Against Women Act and
Violence Against Women Act related federal indictments and awarded over
$700 million in grants to communities to assist in combating violence
against women.
``Unfortunately, H.R. 2436 is not designed to respond to violence
against women. The Administration has significant public policy
concerns with the legislation, as was described by the Department of
Justice's letter to the House Committee on the Judiciary on September
9, 1999. For example, H.R. 2436 would: (1) trigger an excessive
increase in the length of sentence as compared with the sentence that
would otherwise be imposed for injury to a woman who is not pregnant;
(2) depart from the traditional rule that criminal punishment should
correspond to the knowledge and intent of the defendants; and, this is
the more serious problem, (3) identify a fetus as a separate and
distinct victim of a crime, which is unprecedented as a matter of
Federal statute, and unnecessary to achieve the goal of increasing the
punishment for violence against pregnant women.
``H.R. 2436 is, in fact, careful to recognize that abortion-related
conduct is constitutionally protected; however, this does not remove
all doubt about the bill's constitutionality, as explained by the
Department of Justice letter to the House Committee on the Judiciary on
September 9, 1999.''
The Administration strongly opposes this bill, H.R. 2436. They
recognize, and so state, that I will ``offer an alternative that,'' in
the Administrations opinion, ``appropriately focuses on increasing the
punishment for violence against pregnant women without identifying the
fetus as a separate and distinct victim of a crime.''
I am hopeful that my colleagues in the House will listen carefully to
this Statement of the Administration's policy and come together to
support the substitute that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)
and I will offer that will allow for tough sentences, that will deter
violence against women, that will allow up to a life sentence to punish
those who would commit the odious crime of assaulting a woman and
causing her to miscarry, and that we do this together instead of
continuing to divide this Congress and this Nation over the very
emotional issue of reproductive choice.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
(Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R.
2436. I appreciate the author that introduced the legislation that
would make it a federal law to protect unborn children. Mr. Speaker,
the bill to me simply states that, and I quote, an individual who
commits a Federal crime of violence against a pregnant woman and
thereby causes death or injury to her unborn child will be held
accountable for the harm caused to both victims, mother and child. H.R.
2436 does not attempt to overturn Roe vs. Wade. It would not offend me
if it did, but it does not, nor infringe on the rights of a woman to
have an abortion. The bill applies after conception and before
delivery.
Opponents of the bill have said that this bill is a back door to
eliminating a woman's right to choose, but this bill is about choice,
Mr. Chairman, but it is about choice after the choice favoring life has
been made. It is about protecting women's right to make certain
choices. If a woman chooses to bring a new life into the world, H.R.
2436 will allow under federal law for the prosecutions of those who
callously disregard that choice.
I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2436 and make criminals
accountable for their malicious acts against a pregnant woman and her
unborn child.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H9048]]

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the House Committee
on the Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham) for bringing this bill forward. It is much needed
and fills a gap in our criminal law, and to those who lament the fact
that Roe versus Wade might be somehow or other impacted or questioned,
I can only say because an issue is difficult and creates heartburn on
all sides is no reason we should not address it because Roe versus
Wade, which in my opinion ranks right up there with Dred Scott as an
outrageous decision in our Supreme Court's history deserves to be
discussed and not surrendered to.
There are two aspects to this debate. The first one is the concept of
punishing somebody for damaging or killing a fetus. That is about as
clinical a term as we can get, fetus.

{time} 1330

There are others, embryo, blastocyst, zygote. My favorite is
``products of conception.'' Anything to dehumanize that little baby.
That little child, needing time and nourishment to be a little boy, a
little girl, time and nourishment to be an old man or an old woman,
that little child with immense potential, that little child in the
woman growing, is rendered a nullity, a cipher, a zero.
The gentlewoman from California repeatedly repeats how she does not
agree with violence against women. I do not know anybody who does. But
what about the unborn? Why is that forgotten in your calculus?
What about when the obstetrician treats a pregnant woman, the fact
that he treats two patients? What about the fact that the little unborn
can have a different gender than the mother, can have a different blood
type than the mother? The little unborn is a separate and distinct
patient, and the obstetrician treats both of them.
So the dehumanizing, the desensitizing, the depersonalizing of this
little entity known as the unborn is an essential aspect of the other
side's argument, because otherwise they have to confront the fact that
abortion kills a tiny member of the human family.
Now, nobody, no decent person would kill another person, except in
self-defense or for some other legitimate reason. So then when you
support abortion you have to have recourse to some semantic gymnastics.
You have to define the little victim as less than human, subhuman,
expendable.
You cannot throw away a human being, but you can throw away a fetus,
if you define it as utterly without value or possessing secondary value
to the woman.
So this dilemma the pro-choicers are in is well known. They cannot
admit any humanity to the unborn. But that is clinically primitive. The
unborn is there. It has a little heartbeat, it has brain waves, it is a
member of the human family, and to deny that, in my opinion, is self-
deception, terribly serious self-deception.
So this bill recognizes that when a pregnant woman is assaulted, it
is a more serious condition than when a woman who is not pregnant is
assaulted, considering the same force used in the assault. That second
little victim deserves recognition. You obliterate the second little
victim. You will not give credit for the membership in the human
family, and that is sad.
I know why you do it, because otherwise you are confronted with the
fact that you are aborting a human being, and that just cannot be. So
define them out of existence, that is what you do.
So I am pleased and proud that this bill has been offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham). Logically to reject this
bill or accept the gentlewoman's substitute is to deny the truth and
the facts, the reality, that that little child in the womb is a member
of the human family and ought to be loved and nourished and cherished
and recognized, not obliterated and rendered a zero.
Why is it the party of compassion, why is it Members who pride
themselves on caring for the little guy, the one that is left out, have
no room in their moral imagination for the unborn?
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak, but I must
make an observation that concerns me.
It seems to me that there comes now a pattern among our pro-life
colleagues here in the House. They begin by defining a legitimate
concern. The last 4 years the concern was about late-term abortions.
But then they come up with a solution, a law, almost written for the
purpose of being defeated, knowing that the bill is going to be vetoed,
with no intention of working with the administration to pass a solvable
law that can deal with the problem that they claim concerns them so
greatly.
Just as we could have had a partial-birth late-term abortion bill
signed into law prohibiting frivolous late-term abortions 4 years ago
if our pro-life colleagues had been willing to sit down in good faith
and deal with their concerns, now today we find ourselves with another
legitimate concern, the concern that no one, no one in this House, man
or woman, wants to condone anyone harming a woman or her fetus at any
stage in her pregnancy.
Yet, once again, like they did for the last 4 years, they wrote a law
without consulting with the administration, without considering how can
we actually solve this problem together, how can we protect pregnant
women by working together. Instead, it seems to me the greater goal in
developing this legislation was to make a point, that a fertilized egg
a second after conception is a human being. We could have solved this
problem they talk about today; but it seems to me, once again, as with
the other legislation, that was not the ultimate goal.
Finally, I must raise the question if in this bill you define a child
as a fertilized egg, then how can you philosophically be consistent in
saying it is okay to allow abortion in cases of rape and incest? How
can you say in this bill itself that it is okay for a woman to take
drugs, it is okay for a woman to do something that might end up
terminating her pregnancy.
It seems to me if you accept the definition of a child as being
conception, then you are saying okay, it is okay to have murder in some
cases, but not in other cases.
My primary point is, is it not time we stop this political posturing
and sit down on a bipartisan basis with the administration? Whether it
is the issue of late-term abortions or harming pregnant women, let us
work together to find a solution that can be passed into law and
actually do some good.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to agree with the gentleman.
There is no logic or consistency for tolerating abortion as a result of
rape or incest. The little victim has committed no wrong or no crime.
The gentleman is absolutely right, and it saddens me that that is in
our law. Unfortunately, it recognizes the political reality, and we are
saving some children, if not all that we should save.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's philosophical
consistency. I respect that. Unfortunately, many of the others
supporting the bill saying life begins at conception are not being
consistent, are not being straightforward. I respect the gentleman
greatly for being consistent. Even though I might disagree with the
conclusion of his beliefs, the gentleman is consistent.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
(Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the authors
for this bill. My home State has a bill that protects unborn children
in the case of the death of the mother.
I have been involved in delivering five babies to dead women, five.
Three of them died, one of them is essentially going to be totally
dependent all the rest of her life, and one is a bright, alive, awake
child.
Four of those deliveries happened before Oklahoma had a law. There
was nothing that happened to the person that killed the mother,
ultimately, or the child. So what we are attempting

[[Page H9049]]

to do here is a right thing; it is not a wrong thing.
We ought to talk about half-truths. The gentleman from Texas said
that all we had to do was agree with the President on partial-birth
abortion, that the health of the woman as an exception, and he would
have signed it, which totally renders that bill useless. What it says
is if you want to abort a late-term baby, you can; and you can just
rationalize and say it is for the health of the mother, because she
does not want the baby.
So I understand the gentleman's quest for consistency, but before we
ask for a quest for consistency, we ought to ask for a quest for the
fullness of all the facts before we make the statements.
The life, there is no question about it. There is no question about
it genetically that life begins at conception. Based with the knowledge
we have now in our country, we define death as the absence of brain
waves and the absence of heartbeat. Before most women ever recognize
the signs and symptoms of their pregnancy, their baby has those two
things, a heartbeat and brain waves, and when our technology catches up
with our hearts, then we will be able to prove scientifically that in
fact a baby at conception is a human being.
I will grant, we cannot prove that now, but we certainly can at 41
days post-last menstrual period. We can prove that scientifically, just
by using our definition of death.
So, again, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this bill to
the floor. It is way too late, it is way too late for all those
children whose opportunity for life is going to be taken away in this
next year, but maybe incrementally, and maybe when we have somebody of
conscience that will sign the bills of conscience, we will have saved
the lives we should be saving.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill,
and I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this issue.
We can all agree on one thing: that crimes against women that cause
the loss of a pregnancy are tragic and deplorable acts. These crimes
ought to be punished severely. However, this bill is not the way to
achieve this goal.
This bill misses the point because it completely ignores the injury
to the woman and instead it attempts to give new legal protections to
the fetus as a way of undermining a woman's right to choose.
We are here debating a bill that will not provide any significant
enhancement of our ability to prosecute criminals who harm pregnant
women, because it only applies to cases prosecuted in the Federal
court. Criminal acts of this type are almost never prosecuted in a
Federal criminal court.
Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the
Judiciary a former special counsel to the U.S. Sentencing Commission
testified that ``this bill is unnecessary and current Federal law
already provides sufficient authority for the punishment of criminals
who hurt fetuses.''
If we are serious about protecting women and their pregnancies from
harm, we should be passing legislation that addresses the real world,
common sense of these crimes.
What we need to be talking about today is the all-too-frequent
occurrence of domestic violence. Sadly, in this country nearly one in
three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a
partner during adulthood. Why are we not here debating the Violence
against Women Act reauthorization to provide grants for law enforcement
to crack down on sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse? We
could be providing training for law enforcement to help them address
domestic violence, counseling for women who have been attacked or
abused, and funding for battered women's shelters.
I would be pleased to work with my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle to pass a bill that addresses these deplorable acts against
women and provides a strong and decisive tool for punishing those
criminals who commit these horrific acts.
I am happy to support the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), which establishes a sentencing enhancement of
up to life in prison for an offense against a woman which results in
the loss of her pregnancy. Rather than debating a back door attempt at
undermining a woman's constitutional right to choose, we should be
working together hand in hand to pass legislation that addresses the
real nature of violence against women in this country.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I must say I am a little confused about this debate. I
do not understand why it is so difficult to understand. Now,
admittedly, Mr. Chairman, I stand before you a man. Pretty obviously, I
have never been pregnant, and I never will be. It will be said,
therefore, I cannot understand.

{time} 1345

I must say, Mr. Chairman, I have been in close association with women
who have been pregnant: My wife with our own babies, my beautiful
daughter-in-law when pregnant with my grandson, friends who were
pregnant with their babies.
What I have seen in my association with these lovely ladies in their
pregnancy is one consistent pattern. Almost immediately upon learning
they are pregnant, they begin and do put the baby first. They change
their own patterns of behavior. They change their eating habits. They
change many other patterns of behavior. They do so to protect that baby
during that pregnancy. They have prenatal medical experiences that are
elaborate, thorough and consistent.
I have heard it said by many people in the health profession and by
many women in their pregnancies, there is no time, no time in that
child's life, where their medical experience is more critical than when
that child is receiving prenatal care.
We quite rightly observe that need, honor that need, and attend to
that need while always putting the baby first.
We protect that child from illness during that time when the child is
so fragile, and now we have brought before this body a piece of
legislation that says that same child, in that same time, should be
protected from violence. That baby should be protected from acts of
violence.
How can somebody argue against that? It is perfectly possible for a
pregnant woman to be assaulted and while being assaulted viciously
suffer harm while her baby loses its life. Certainly we want that
person that would assault that woman, whether pregnant or not, to be
subject to the most stiff of punishments, and we have attended to that
in this body and we do attend to it; but now we are saying that the
baby must be attended to, too.
The baby is a life. That baby has a right.
I see people down here arguing against that protection for that baby
who I have seen myself and heard with my own ears, in other times, in
other venues, stand in this same room and argue most vociferously for
the need for prenatal care, most eloquently.
I am confused, Mr. Chairman. How can the baby's need for prenatal
care be recognized and then reject the baby's right to protection from
violence?
I have heard arguments here that might be construed that this bill
was written about or is written about or is perhaps wrong because it
fails to be about the mother. The legislation was written for the baby.
Do we now have a situation where in this body we fail to honor the
mother's sacrifice for the baby? Do we now fail in all the bills that
come through this body to say that it is right, proper, necessary,
indeed urgent, that in this bill, at this time, we do what every mother
I have ever known does during this pregnancy, we put the rights of the
baby first and foremost out there?
Mr. Chairman, I am proud of telling people that the first time I saw
a picture of my baby grandson, Chris, he was only 5 months old, and
when I saw that sonogram I knew he had his grandpa's eyes. Chris was
entitled, at the time that picture was taken, to every bit of care he
could get through the advances of modern medicine, and he was entitled
to every bit of protection under the law that this Congress can afford
him.

[[Page H9050]]

I will be absolutely heartbroken to believe that there can be anybody
in this body that is given the high privilege of serving in this body
that could find it in their heart to vote against that baby's right for
protection. I just cannot believe anyone could be that cruel,
heartless, and selfish.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this misguided
bill, as a mother of three, as a grandmother of five, because once
again we are faced with a decent idea but, in my judgment, it has gone
horribly awry.
The proponents of this bill have taken an important principle, the
constitutional right of a woman to have control over her own pregnancy,
and hijacked it, unfortunately, into the divisive world of abortion
politics.
I want to make something absolutely clear from the outset. The loss
or harm to a woman and her fetus is absolutely devastating to the woman
and her family. As a mother and a grandmother, I cannot imagine a
greater pain, frankly. Those who injure or kill a pregnant woman and
her fetus should be severely punished and families should have
appropriate redress for their loss.
Because we believe strongly that families should have the legal tools
to have their loss recognized, we will offer a substitute that does
just that, and I believe that the Lofgren substitute will demonstrate
very clearly that there is a lot of common ground on this issue if we
would only look for that instead of looking for ways to disagree.
Having said that, let me explain why the approach this bill takes is
just another thinly veiled attempt to chip away at a woman's right to
choose.
This bill would give a fetus the same legal recognition as you or I,
for the first time in Federal law, the first time. Instead of
addressing the real issue at hand, the horrible pain for a woman who
loses a pregnancy to a cowardly, violent act, this bill is an
ideological marker for the anti-choice special interests.
Frankly, this bill is just another way of writing a human life
amendment. In fact, the National Right to Life Committee admits that it
participated in drafting the bill and, according to the committee web
site, the bill challenges that pro-choice ideology by recognizing the
unborn child as a human victim, distinct from the mother.
If anti-choice Members of this House want to recognize the fetus as a
person, I respect that. Do that. Bring a human life amendment to the
floor and let us debate it and let us vote on it. But let us not tell
pregnant women in this country that my colleagues are trying to protect
them with this bill when there are existing Federal laws to do just
that, and when we are willing to join my colleagues in addressing the
tragic but rare cases where pregnant women are attacked.
The American people are smarter than they are being given credit for.
They know my colleagues are proposing a political statement today, not
a real solution. Let us not insult their intelligence this way. If my
colleagues really want to crack down on cowardly criminals who would
attack a pregnant woman, support the Lofgren substitute. It gets us to
the same ends without the overtly political means.
If my colleagues are serious about protecting women in this country
from violence, why do we not bring up the Violence Against Women Act
for floor consideration? It has 174 cosponsors, almost double the
number of cosponsors of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Where is
it?
Reauthorizing VAWA is critical to effectively combatting violence
against women. Every year, over 2 million American women are physically
abused by their husbands or boyfriends. A woman is physically abused
every 15 seconds in this country, and one of every three abused
children becomes an adult abuser or victim. The Unborn Victims of
Violence Act, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, will not do anything for
these women, but the Violence Against Women Act will make all the
difference in the world.
Mr. Chairman, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is not about
protecting pregnant women from violent acts. It is yet another anti-
choice attempt to undermine a woman's right to choose.
Time and time again I have stood on the House Floor and asked my
colleagues to work with me, to help women improve their health, plan
their pregnancies, have healthier children. It is tragic that every day
over 400 babies are born to mothers who receive little or no prenatal
care. Every minute a baby is born to a teen mother and three babies die
every hour. It is tragic that one of three women will experience
domestic violence in her adulthood.
Instead of finding ways to visit the divisive abortion battle,
Americans want us to focus our efforts on providing women with access
to prenatal care, affordable contraception, health education, violence
prevention. If we truly want to protect women and their pregnancies
from harm, then let us work together to enact legislation to help women
have healthy babies.
I see my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). We have
worked together on legislation to try and help women have healthy
babies. I would love to continue to work with my good friend to do just
that. Let us focus on that, but I would hope we would vote no on H.R.
2436.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I have never
participated in a pro-life or pro-choice debate on the floor of this
House. I am usually the one sitting in the back of the room carefully
reading the text, trying to decide what the right thing to do is, but I
came here today because I think this one is so clear.
I do not understand why we spend so much time arguing about how many
angels dance on the head of a pin instead of trying to look at what is
right and what is wrong. One can be the most pro-choice person in this
body and vote in favor of this bill with enthusiasm because it is not
about the unwanted pregnancies; it is about the wanted ones.
Most of the women in this House have been blessed with being moms.
Those are the children that we prayed for, we waited for, we read books
to, we sang to. If someone deprives us of our choice to bring that
child into the world, it is wrong; and it should be a crime to do so.
We talk about taking attention away from the problem of domestic
violence and my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey),
knows that I am cosponsoring many of those pieces of legislation that
she is so strongly in favor of, but it does not make any sense to me to
say that caring about the lost child somehow demeans that child's
mother.
If there are children in this room and something goes wrong, all of
us do what is natural and what is also good. We protect the children.
We protect the children. It is both natural and admirable and I commend
the gentleman for bringing forward this bill.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
MR. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Lofgren) for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, we have a large problem in this country with violence
against women, and it is obviously a great tragedy if a physical
assault against a woman results in damage to the fetus she carries and
damage to the baby when it is born or, God forbid, in a miscarriage.

{time} 1400

Such an assault should clearly be punished more severely than an
assault on her that does not harm the fetus. Both the bill before us
and the Lofgren substitute would accomplish this end.
Both provide for penalties up to life in prison. Both suffer from the
fact that they amend only Federal law. Of course, most cases of
violence against women are prosecuted in State courts, and so it would
be unaffected by either the bill or the substitute.
If we really want to protect women and their unborn children, we
should pass the Violence Against Women Act, too. But that is not, that
is not, I repeat, the real purpose of this bill. If it were the real
purpose, the sponsors would agree to the Lofgren substitute, which
provides for enhanced sentences up to life imprisonment for people who,
while assaulting the woman, injure or kill the fetus.
But they will not accept the substitute. Why not? Because the real
purpose of the bill is, as the distinguished

[[Page H9051]]

chairman the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the sponsor of the bill, have admitted is
not to protect the mother or the fetus, but to establish the status of
the fetus or the embryo or even the zygote as a legally separate
person, and thus to undermine the Roe v. Wade decision, legalizing a
woman's right to choose an abortion.
Neither the Congress nor the Federal courts have ever recognized the
fetus as a separate person. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was
eloquent in his description of the separate personhood of the fetus.
That of course is the central question in the abortion debate. If an
embryo or fetus is, in fact, a separate person, then abortion is
murder.
Now, some people may think that. A majority of the Americans may not
agree. But the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and others are entitled to their opinion.
They are entitled to introduce a constitutional amendment to try to
overturn Roe v. Wade and to send desperate women back to the back alley
coat hanger abortionists. We would fight that, but at least we would
have an honest debate on the real issue.
But do not ask us to vote for a bill to undermine a woman's right to
choose an abortion disguised as a bill to protect victims of violence.
Be honest with us and with the American people. Be direct.
If my colleagues' interest is to protect the mother and the fetus,
then they should support the Lofgren substitute, because it does
exactly that up to life imprisonment.
But if my colleagues' intent is to establish the legal status of a
fetus as a separate person, then they support this bill. That is a
totally new concept in Federal law. Congress and the courts have never
agreed with that. It undermines Roe v. Wade. It undermines a woman's
right to choose. That is the real purpose of this bill.
It also establishes another novel legal concept that we should punish
somebody specifically when there is no intent. That is undermining the
general intent of the criminal law.
So the real question is not protecting women. We can protect women.
Support the Lofgren substitute. Bring up for a vote the Violence
Against Women Act. Bring that to the floor.
Do not pretend that this is what this is. This is simply an assault
on abortion. As the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) said, it is
a disguised human-life amendment. That is its purpose. I do not believe
we should act on this floor with subterfuge.
If that is my colleagues' purpose, say so. The gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was honest about it. But we should have a direct
bill to do that and not try to disguise it under assaults against
women, which this is.
I would hope that we would adopt the Lofgren substitute so that we
can protect women so that we do express our horror and give additional
heavier penalties to someone who assaults a woman and harms and kills
the fetus and causes a miscarriage, but not get involved in the other
debate, which we should debate in a different time, rather, on the
issue of whether we want to ban abortions and send women back to the
back alley coat hanger abortions.
A vote for this bill and against the Lofgren substitute is exactly a
vote to do that, to say to desperate women they have no right to choose
and we want to undermine abortion. Those who say it is not because we
exempt it in the bill are not recognizing the real intent and the
purpose and effect of the bill.
So I urge a vote for the Lofgren substitute.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the Chair
concerning the amount of time remaining on both sides.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) has 34 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has 33\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the recent cover of a Newsweek Magazine featured the
image of a preborn child. The article went on to discuss the latest
scientific findings that what happens to the preborn in the gestation
period will affect the health and the life of that person for the rest
of their life.
Now, Newsweek is not a publication that has probably been sympathetic
to the cause of the preborn. But this article reinforces something that
we have all known intuitively; and that is, what happens to the preborn
is important, and it will have lasting impact on their life.
Now, Congress has noted this in the past, because Congress has
supported nutrition programs and prenatal programs. But, ironically,
under current Federal law, a person who assaults a woman and who kills
or injures that unborn child faces no criminal, none whatsoever, no
consequence, no criminal action for the death or injury to that child.
This bill seeks to change that. It simply says that violent criminals
are going to be held responsible and accountable for the violence that
they incur.
There is some irony, Mr. Chairman, that one of the great achievements
I think of this century, when history looks back on it, has been the
fight for the civil rights of minorities. I believe that one of the
greatest tragedies of this generation has been its failure to extend
those basic civil rights to the preborn, civil rights that we take for
granted: the rights of due process and equal protection and the basic
right to life.
The great irony is that, in this great deliberative body, that there
are so many who have benefited so much by the civil rights movement
stand so firmly against extending those basic human rights, the right
to be protected against violence to the most innocent and the most
fragile in our society, the preborn.
I urge support of this bill.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2436,
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. According to its sponsors, the
legislative intent is to protect pregnant women from violence. Instead
of protecting pregnant women, this legislation focuses on giving legal
protection to any ``member of the species Homo sapiens,'' and I quote,
``at all stages of development.'' This includes the zygote, a
blastocyst, and an embryo or fetus.
Instead of protecting pregnant women from violence, this legislation
would impose the same sentence for attacking an unborn fetus which the
Supreme Court has ruled is not a person as is imposed for attacking the
victim, the pregnant woman, a recognized person under law.
The true legislative intent of this piece of legislation is to bestow
upon the fetus the legal standing of a person.
The United States Supreme Court has already ruled an unborn is not a
person and does not receive legal rights. Even Justice Antonin Scalia,
a staunch opponent of Roe v. Wade agrees with this position.
I rise to speak for a moment about some of the legal aspects of this
bill, since it seems, so far, we have only been caught up in a
discussion of things that pull on the heart strings of the American
public.
Not a person who stands on the floor today would say that it is
unfortunate, it is a terrible incidence that a pregnant woman would be
caused to lose her baby or even lose her own life.
I quote the Justice Department, as follows: ``The Justice Department
strongly objects to H.R. 2436 as a matter of public policy and also
believes that in specific circumstances, illustrated below, the bill
may raise a constitutional concern. The administration has made the
fight against domestic violence and other violence against women a top
priority. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which passed with the
bipartisan support of Congress in 1994, has been a critical turning
point in our national effort to address'' the issue. ``VAWA, for the
first time, created Federal domestic violence offenses with strong
penalties to hold violent offenders accountable.''
H.R. 2436 expressly provides that the defendant need not know or have
reason to know that the victim is pregnant. The bill thus makes a
potentially

[[Page H9052]]

dramatic increase in penalty turn on an element for which liability is
strict.
As a consequence, for example, if a police officer uses a slight
amount of excessive force to subdue a female suspect, without knowing
or having any reason to believe that she was pregnant, and she later
miscarries, the officer could be subject to mandatory life imprisonment
without possibility of parole, even though the maximum sentence for
such use of force on a nonpregnant woman would be 10 years. This
approach is an unwarranted departure from the ordinary rule that
punishment should correspond to culpability.
As a former prosecutor, I was always alarmed when I saw Congress
moving to legislate a new crime solely for the purpose of political
leverage and attention, instead of looking to the real impact such
legislation could have. I believe this is the case here.
If this Congress was truly interested in protecting pregnant women,
we would have passed gun control and gun safety legislation, because,
as a result of domestic violence, guns are in our homes, and they are
used against women who are pregnant or not pregnant. In light of the
fact that it is a major target, domestic violence is a major target of
Violence Against Women's Act, we need to address the many ways women
are attacked at home.
I would think that, if we were talking about doing something to
assist pregnant women and protect unborn children, we would be talking
about other issues on this floor instead of wasting our time talking
about a piece of legislation that has, in fact, nothing but a political
remedy to it.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) says ``moral imagination.''
The women in this House do not have to have moral imagination. Many of
them have had children. Many of them may have, in fact, suffered from
miscarriages or other incidents where they have lost their children.
But it does not rise to the level where we want to change or put into
effect a law that is unconstitutional.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Florida for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to me what length me people will go to
sustain a myth, believe the unbelievable, and aggressively market a
collective sense of denial concerning a profound truth.
Mr. Chairman, at a time when we know more and understand more about
the magnificent life of an unborn child than ever before in history, at
a time when doctors can diagnose and treat serious anomalies that
afflict these smallest of patients, at a time when ultrasound imaging
has become a window to the womb, revealing the child in utero, sucking
his or her thumb or doing somersaults or even little karate kicks,
along comes the pro-choice lobby, outraged, angry, fuming, that anyone
dare challenge their big lie and suggest that unborn children have
innate value, worth, and dignity.
At all costs, abortion advocates must cling to the self-serving
fiction that unborn babies are something other than human and alive. By
systematically debasing the value of these children, it has become
easier for adults to procure the violent deaths of these little ones if
they happen to be unwanted, unplanned, or imperfect.
But the inherent violence of abortion is not what is addressed by
this bill. As a matter of fact, abortion is expressly outside the scope
of this legislation. I say to my colleagues, read the bill.
So for now at least, I say to the advocates of abortion, go ahead,
pat yourselves on the back. You have won for now. As a result of Roe
versus Wade and its prodigy and 26 years of congressional acquiescence,
40 million unborn babies in America have been dismembered or chemically
poisoned or have had their brains sucked out by what some
euphemistically call choice.
But that should not mean that murderers, muggers, and rapists should
also have that same unfettered ability to maim or kill an unborn child
without consequence.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is designed to deter and, if that
fails, to punish the perpetrators of violence against unborn children
in the commission of a Federal offense.
The bill, as we know, would apply to some 65 laws that establish
Federal crimes, including violence. H.R. 2436 does not diminish
existing law concerning violence against women in any way, shape, or
form, but adds new penalties and seeks justice for the harm or death
suffered by the child.
Thus, if this legislation is enacted into law, our laws against
violence will be stronger, tougher, and more comprehensive. H.R. 2436
merely adds new penalties to existing ones and tracks existing statutes
currently in force in approximately 24 States.

{time} 1415

This initiative adds layers of deterrence and punishment so that
violent offenders can be held to account for all of the damage and
injury or death and heartbreak they have inflicted on innocent victims.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, Mr. Chairman, recognizes in law
the self-evident truth that an assault on a pregnant woman is an attack
on two victims. Both lives are precious; both lives deserve protection.
This is truly a humane and necessary legislative initiative, and I
congratulate the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) for his
wisdom and courage in authoring this bill and the skill and tenacity of
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution; and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, in shepherding
this legislation to the floor.
I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and against the substitute.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I wish we could come together in this
country on the very difficult question of abortion. I think there are
people of good will on both sides of this issue.
I know that in my own life I have tried my best to reach out. I have
had a long dialogue with a pastor in my district to see if there is not
some middle ground, something we can take as a position that all
reasonable people would agree with. There is some hope in that regard.
For example, to emphasize adoption rather than abortion; to emphasize
personal responsibility and try to teach family planning.
Today's bill, I am afraid, is a step in the opposite way, and that is
why I am opposed to it. The bill states something that many people of
very sincere faith hold dear: namely that a person begins at the
earliest possible moment of conception. That is what the bill says. It
does not use the word conception, but it says, ``a member of the
species Homo sapiens from the earliest possible point of development.''
I know people of good will believe that. But the truth is that there
are other people of good will who do not. And there are people of good
will who do not know exactly when life begins and who recognize that it
is a process that certainly has a start at conception and certainly has
a very significant point at birth and somewhere in between we might say
miracle life, human life.
But are we prepared today to say that we know for certain, for
everybody in a Federal Congress, through the criminal law, that life
begins at conception? I do not think so, not in a government that is
explicitly respectful of differences of religious belief. Because it is
fundamentally a religious question. When does life begin is a religious
question.
If our purpose today is to punish people who harm a pregnant woman,
we can do that. What we should have is an enhanced penalty for causing
a miscarriage. I would vote for that in a second.
And if the purpose were to deter the attacks on a woman who is
pregnant, then the statute should be written so that if the pregnancy
of the woman would be evident. Instead, the statute is written so that
even if the defendant does not know, and does not have any way to know
that the woman is pregnant, the law applies. So that, quite literally,
a murder statute would be applicable against an individual who pushes a
woman in an altercation leading to a miscarriage, even in the very
first, earliest part of her pregnancy.
I wonder if that is really what we intend to do today. If we intend
to protect a pregnant woman against attacks, then we ought to say where
the

[[Page H9053]]

individual should have known or did know that the woman was pregnant.
Obviously, that is how we would deter wrongful conduct.
These points are simple, but they are from my heart. I would love to
bring this country together. What we are doing today, instead, is that
people of very good will, driven by faith, for which I have the
greatest respect, are, despite that good faith, imposing their
religious opinion on those who do not share it. And I do not believe
that is right, and I do not believe it is consistent with our
constitution and with our obligation as Members of this House.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind my good friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), of the doctrine of
transferred intent, which I am sure, as a law professor, he is very
familiar with. For example, if an individual is driving the get-away
car in a bank robbery and, meanwhile, unbeknownst to that driver, a
murder occurs and the guard is killed, the driver of the get-away car
is guilty, even though he did not know.
Now, if someone assaults a woman and injures her and she is pregnant,
that person intended the crime and they must intend the consequences.
I feel very awkward lecturing a professor.
I have one more thing to say. If an individual does not know when
life begins, but they want to kill it, where do we give the benefit of
the doubt?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL. The benefit of the doubt should be to respect the
individual conscientious judgment of people who have faiths that may
not be identical to our own.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am sorry, but I do not
agree. I think we have to protect the little innocent life.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
I would like to respond to the doctrine of transferred intent.
The difference here is that there is a punishment for hurting the
woman. Every act that this statute would reach could be punished
because the woman is hurt, and that is not the case in the gentleman's
bank robbery example.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Surprisingly enough, when a pregnant
woman is the victim of a Federal crime, any resulting injury to her
unborn child goes unpunished. This measure is long overdue.
H.R. 2436 establishes that if an unborn child is injured or killed
during the commission of a Federal crime of violence, then the
assailant could be charged with a second offense on behalf of the
second victim, the unborn child.
Twenty-four States already have laws that explicitly recognize unborn
children as victims of criminal acts, 11 of these throughout the period
of their in utero development. It is high time that we have the same
protection provided for unborn children at the Federal level.
Now, extremist defenders of the abortion industry will try to make
this bill look like it is taking away the right of a woman to abort her
child. This is not true. H.R. 2436 does not permit the prosecution of
any woman who has consented to have an abortion, nor does it permit the
prosecution of the woman for any action in regard to her unborn child.
What this bill does, however, is protect unborn children whose
mothers are physically assaulted, beaten, maimed, or murdered. What we
are saying in this bill is that if someone's wife or sister or daughter
or friend loses her unborn baby because the child died in the uterus
when the mother was being beaten or killed, the perpetrator of the
crime should be held responsible.
Our country desperately needs this Federal law. Last month in Little
Rock, a woman who was 9 months pregnant was severely beaten by thugs
allegedly hired by her boyfriend. Sadly, they accomplished their goal
and the baby was killed. Under Federal law, the crime would be against
the woman only. There is no accountability for the killing of the child
who was 3 days away from being born.
Yet another example. Ruth Croston was 5 months pregnant when, on
April 21, 1999, she was killed by her husband. She and her unborn
daughter died after being shot at least five times. The husband was
prosecuted in Federal Court for domestic violence and using a firearm
in the commission of a violent crime, but no charges, no charges were
brought for the killing of the unborn baby girl, and this brutal act
goes unpunished.
The absence of Federal protection of these unborn children is nothing
short of a tragedy. The list of tragic stories goes on and on and on.
This is exactly why we need this bill to be passed in the House today
and signed into law by the President.
H.R. 2436 enables the Federal Government to recognize that when a
pregnant woman is assaulted or killed within its jurisdiction, and her
unborn child is harmed or killed as a result of the crime, there are
two victims, the woman and the child.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to note that neither the bill nor the substitute would apply to the
instances of violence just referenced, because those are State offenses
and there is no Federal predicate.
Mr. Chairman, 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. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, there is no mistake about this, the loss
of a pregnancy through violence to a woman is a major, major tragedy
for the woman and her family. It is absolutely necessary that we punish
any violent crime committed against a pregnant woman who miscarries due
to a crime against her. But, Mr. Chairman, we have to hear the words
from the other side of the aisle. This bill is not about punishing
criminals, it is about taking reproductive rights away from women. It
is about abortion.
The Lofgren substitute, however, recognizes that when harm comes to a
pregnancy, it happens to the pregnant woman; and, yes, the violator
must be punished. The underlying bill, however, is a sneak attack on
Roe v. Wade and would threaten a woman's reproductive rights.
Support for the Lofgren-Conyers substitute shows true concern about
violence for women, and it must be passed. But let us not stop there.
Let us take real steps to make our government work for women, for their
families, and for their children in many other ways. Let us protect
them against violence in the first place. Let us give them paid family
leave, let us prepare them for the 21st century work force, and provide
safe, affordable child care.
But we can start, Mr. Chairman, by voting for the Lofgren substitute,
which shows that we care what happens to women when they have been
violated in any crime that would hurt them and their unborn child.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, on this floor we debate and deal with many
issues that are very complex. This is not one of them. I truly believe
in my heart that my colleagues can be the most pro-choice Members of
this body and vote for this legislation. In fact, I find it
unconscionable that anybody could not support this issue.
Medical technology today is amazing. I remember when my wife and I
were having four children of our own. We could go into the doctor, and
we looked forward to the day when we could go in and listen to the
child's heartbeat. Today couples can see the child through the
sonograms and all the technology that we have today.
The real issue that this bill deals with is loss. The question is,
and I think it is the fundamental question that this bill addresses: is
there a loss? If we were to go to that young soon-to-be-father or
mother and ask them, when they have been victims of violence and they
have lost that child that they have seen and possibly even

[[Page H9054]]

named, that they know the sex of, that they can see sucking its thumb,
kicking, so on and so forth, if we ask them, has there been a loss, the
answer is yes.
Support H.R. 2436.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
(Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. My colleagues, the hypocrisy is
incredible to me, just to hear the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Largent) talk about the sanctity of the human life and how any pro-
choice person in this body ought to be able to vote for this bill. How
in the world can they honestly say that they are for the sanctity of
life and then gladly and proudly come out and say that this bill would
not affect a woman's right to choose and have an abortion?
I am just astounded by those who are so pure on this side of the
aisle; that they get up, like the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon),
who got up and was so pure about relieving our consciences of the fact
that this would not, please, no one mistake the fact that this is going
to undermine Roe v. Wade. It is not going to undermine Roe v. Wade.
Women are still going to be able to have an abortion. That is what the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) was saying; that is what the
gentleman from Oklahoma was saying. They are saying to pro-choice
people like myself that we can vote for this because our constituents
will still have the right to a safe, legal abortion.
I mean, it is just so incongruous that the very people who are saying
that they believe so much in the sanctity of life are now proposing a
bill that they willingly admit does not protect the very people they
think need to be protected.
Now, in addition to being intellectually dishonest, this bill is a
farce. It talks about the unborn victims of violence. What about the
born victims of violence? What about the 13 and 14 kids that are killed
every day in this country by guns that this leadership fails to bring
up on the floor because they are in bed with the gun lobby? What about
the fact that we have members who want to get up on the floor and talk
all about the sanctity of human life and spreading those civil rights
that they say that we stand so much for and then saying we ought to be
for the unborn child?

{time} 1430

What about for the born child? What about for the child that is
already here? Have my colleagues ever looked at the indices for
spending that this Republican budget spends on inner-city kids from
minority families who are on the WIC program, who are trying to get
Headstart? And those people pretend that they are for the human life?
Do they not value the human life of one in four kids in this country
who are in poverty? And they want to cut the earned income tax credit?
This is a farce. I do not need to say any more. This is a farce.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Kennedy). Of course we should be concerned about our children. I
think that we are in this body. But this issue that we are addressing
today is to protect a woman who wants to carry a child all the way to
term and to have that child, and that is what we speak of in the right
to choose.
If someone decides to have an abortion, that is protected under the
Constitution. It is not inconsistent because we might be pro-life and
we cannot change that, and so we look at this law as an opportunity to
protect the mother's right to have a child when she makes that
decision. Surely someone that believes in the right to abort a child
would concede that if a woman makes a decision to carry a child to term
that that decision should be respected.
Then the gentleman from New York previously said, well, why pass this
law because it does not cover State law and that is where most of the
assaults against women occur? Well, obviously, that is true. And many
of the States are addressing that. But it is important that we do what
we can in this body to protect women. Our responsibility is to look at
the Federal law, and that is what this bill does.
Then there are those that argue, well, present law is sufficient.
Well, under the present law, under the Federal system, a perpetrator of
violence against a woman can only be charged for assault and battery.
This brings it to another level so that, if the unborn child is killed,
then it can be actually a homicide case. The present law is not
adequate. There are those that argue that sentence enhancements is
sufficient. Well, it is not.
Let me tell my colleagues about the case from Arkansas that has
already been referenced. In Arkansas, we did not have a fetal
protection law until the last session of the legislature, where the
legislature wisely adopted a law that would protect that unborn child
in the event of assault upon a woman. This year it came into play when
Shiwana Pace was assaulted brutally by three assailants who were hired
by the father of the child.
The father of the child says, I do not want this child to live. So he
hired three hit men to go and to beat that child. And while they were
beating the woman in the stomach, they said, today your child dies. And
the nine-month-old pregnancy was ended and the unborn child died.
Under the old law, they could only be prosecuted for assault and
battery upon the woman. But because Arkansas adopted the fetal
protection law, an actual murder case was able to be lodged by the
prosecutor to protect the woman and to really reflect the loss that she
suffered because she wanted to have that child.
The old law was not sufficient. Sentence enhancement was not
sufficient. It was Arkansas' new law that really brought the criminal
justice system to bear on the true loss to that woman who decided that
she wanted to carry that child in her womb all the way to birth. And
so, a Federal law is needed, as well, to accomplish the same thing, to
protect the woman fully.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote some of the
editorial that ran in the New York Times on September 14. The editorial
is entitled ``On a Dangerous Path to Fetal Rights.''
The New York Times points out: ``Congressional opponents of abortion
rights have come up with yet another scheme to advance their agenda.
Called the `Unborn Victims of Violence Act,' . . . the measure aims to
chip away at women's reproductive freedom by granting new legal status
to `unborn children'--under the deceptively benign guise of fighting
crime. . . .
``No one would quarrel that an attack on a pregnant woman that
results in a miscarriage or prevents normal fetal development is a
tragedy. Extra severe penalties in such cases may be appropriate. But
that can be done by prosecuting a defendant for assaulting the pregnant
woman. The pending bill, however, treats the woman as a different
entity from the fetus--in essence raising the status of a fetus to that
of a person for law enforcement purposes--a longtime goal of the right-
to-life movement.
``The bill contains exceptions for medical treatment and legal
abortions. That has allowed the bill's sponsors to assert that the
measure has nothing to do with the abortion issue. But that view is
disingenuous. By creating a separate legal status for fetuses, the
bill's supporters are plainly hoping to build a foundation for a fresh
legal assault on the constitutional underpinnings of the Supreme
Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. Sending the nation down a legal path
that could undermine the privacy rights of women is not a reasonable
way to protect women or to deter crime.''
I could not agree with that more.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella.)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Unborn Victims of Violence
Act. For the past 12 years, 13 years really, as a Member of this House,
I have worked to secure health care for women and children, to fight
against domestic violence, and to protect a woman's right to choose. I
believe that

[[Page H9055]]

this legislation would reverse our triumphs and our progress over the
decades.
I believe that the true intention of this legislation is to
ultimately redefine when life begins and reverse the Supreme Court
ruling of Roe v. Wade. No one here should think that this is not a
debate on abortion.
H.R. 2436 is said to be protection for pregnant women against a
violent crime. But the words ``mother,'' ``women,'' or ``pregnant
women'' are just not mentioned in the language of the bill.
I would proudly support a bill to prevent and punish the violent
crimes against pregnant women within our society, but this bill ignores
where and when these crimes most often occur.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act lists Federal crimes, such as
``damage to religious property'' and ``transaction involving nuclear
materials'' and situations where a ``Homo sapien in any stage of
development within the womb'' would receive protection.
How is this bill helping the 37 percent of women who need to receive
emergency help because of their husband or boyfriend? Where is the
legislation in maintaining a restraining order when a woman flees to
another State?
If we want to protect women and their children from violence, let us
debate funding for shelters and hotlines that are overrun by women in
danger to broadly address where violence occurs.
Fundamentally, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is legislation that
seeks to redefine when life begins. I support the landmark decision of
Roe v. Wade in 1973 that established a woman's right to choose to
terminate a pregnancy while also allowing individual States to
determine the legality of such decisions as a pregnancy proceeds.
Thirty-nine States have strengthened laws to protect either a
pregnant woman or her pregnancy with specific determinations of
personhood and in cases of violent crime. Any new Federal law should
protect a pregnant woman without threatening a woman's right to choose.
I strongly urge my colleagues not to jeopardize the decisions women
can make about their own bodies and to vote no on H.R. 2436.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) has 20 minutes
remaining, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has 15\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act, a bill that brings justice against a criminal for harm
done to two victims, not just one. Both lives are precious. Both lives
deserve protection.
Many States do already recognize unborn children as victims of such
crimes. For instance, my home State of Pennsylvania, like more than 20
others, does have such a law. It is called the Fetal Homicide law. This
law, I might add, receives support from both pro-choice and pro-life
legislators. Why, then, can we not take what are protections in many of
our States to protections in Federal crimes?
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was designed to address a flaw in
our law which says right now that there is no punishment for the injury
or harm to an unborn child during a Federal crime. Should we ignore the
violence that women and their unborn children undergo from violent
criminals, characterizing the injury or even death of the child as ``an
interruption in the normal course of pregnancy''?
I submit that it is much more than that. If such a Federal law were
in place, we could punish some of these criminals for their terrible
actions and incidents ranging from the tragic story of the woman in
Arkansas whose near-term infant was beaten to death inside her body to
incidents with which we are all familiar where pregnant women and their
unborn children are killed, like the bombing of the World Trade Center
or even the Oklahoma City bombing.
Do not let such criminals go unpunished for the lives they have
devastated and ruined. Let us make those criminals pay for the lives
they seek to destroy and, in many cases, successfully do so.
This bill is not about abortion or abortion politics, as the
opponents have alleged. It is about providing justice for both victims
in the crime. Vote for the Unborn Victims Violence Act.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, the arguments made by the
supporters tug at the heart strings of the Nation. Yet we, as
legislators, know better. We know that the American people want us to
do justice, not just pontificate, or what makes a great sound byte, or
as a shelter for the lack of work we have done in other areas.
I have to compliment my colleague, the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Mrs. Wilson), for such an elegant and heartwrenching speech and
presentation. Yet she missed the point. It is possible to address the
issues of H.R. 2436 without trespassing on the reproductive rights of
women in this country.
None of the opponents of this bill have argued that abortion can be
prosecuted under this bill. They keep saying that we are saying that we
do not want abortion dealt with so we are opponents of the bill. We
have not argued that, because we see clearly in the bill it deals with
setting aside abortion as a possible offense.
But what we are arguing is that the bill is an effort to erode a
woman's right to choose. And it is. They said it. They know it. The
paper knows it. Everybody knows it. They are trying to erode Roe v.
Wade.
Now, the other thing that must be made clear is, in the Arkansas
situation that was argued, in the North Carolina situation that was
argued, those were State offenses and there were no underlying
predicate acts. In fact, in this legislation that is being presented
today on the floor, there is no underlying predicate act in this bill.
State law can be prosecuted without any further Federal legislation.
What we are saying is, if this is a State law and this is a State
issue, let it be dealt with in the State court. We do not need to pass
any more legislation that is dealt with in State legislate.
In fact, let us think about it like this. I think that is the
argument that the gun proponents made when we were talking about
passing the Brady bill, State law already handles it so why pass
Federal legislation.
In fact, I think that is the argument we made just the other day when
we wanted more gun control, we do not prosecute enough gun control laws
right now. Why pass any more?
Same thing here, let us not pass any more laws that we do not need.
State law deals with this.

{time} 1445

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham) for his very thoughtful and diligent work on this important and
carefully constructed legislation that will help close an unfortunate
gap in Federal law. Since the gentleman from South Carolina has so ably
and thoughtfully explained the legislation earlier in the debate, I
would just like to take a few minutes to address several of the legal
issues that have been raised regarding H.R. 2436.
First, questions have been raised about the constitutional authority
to enact this legislation. That is something that we heard quite a bit
about when the bill was debated in the Committee on the Judiciary. I
submit to the House that the challenge to the bill on this ground is
totally without merit. It is clear that Congress has such
constitutional authority because the bill will only affect conduct that
is already prohibited by Federal law.
H.R. 2436 merely provides an additional offense and punishment for
those who injure or kill an unborn child during the course of the
commission of one of the existing predicate offenses set forth in the
bill. If there is any question regarding the constitutionality of the
act's reach, that question is more properly directed to the
constitutionality of the predicate offenses that are already
established in the Federal law and not to H.R. 2436 itself.
Opponents of the legislation have also argued that it somehow
violates the decision of the Supreme Court in

[[Page H9056]]

Roe v. Wade which was decided in 1973. There are variations on this
argument, this argument is framed in different ways, but that is what
it boils down to. They are saying there is an inconsistency between
this statute and the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Once
again, I submit to the House that this argument simply makes no sense.
To begin with, H.R. 2436 does not apply to abortion. It is very
important to understand that. It was acknowledged just a minute ago,
but I think there are some people who have made arguments against this
bill who do not really understand that. I would direct the Members'
attention to pages 4 and 6 of the Union Calendar version of this bill
where prosecution is explicitly precluded for abortion-related conduct.
It is right there in the bill, an exemption for abortion-related
conduct. The act also does not permit prosecution of any person for any
medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child or of any
woman with respect to her unborn child. So it is very clear in the
bill. There should be no doubt about these provisions of the bill.
Let me go on to say that there is nothing in Roe v. Wade that
prevents Congress from giving legal recognition to the lives of unborn
children outside the parameters of the right to abortion marked off in
that case. In establishing a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy,
the Roe Court explicitly stated that it was not resolving the difficult
question of when life begins, and that is the terminology that the
Court specifically used. They said they were not resolving that. They
said they were not resolving the difficult question of when life
begins, because the judiciary at this point in the development of man's
knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. That is
what the Supreme Court said. What the Court did hold was that the
government could not override the rights of the pregnant woman to
choose to terminate her pregnancy by adopting one theory of when life
begins. The focus there was on the right of the pregnant woman. I think
anyone who understands Roe and the cases that follow that understand
that that is what the focus was. That is undoubted. That is
unquestioned. Anyone that is not aware of that should read the case.
Courts addressing the constitutionality of State laws that punish
killing or injuring unborn children have recognized the lack of merit
in the argument that such laws violate Roe v. Wade and as a result have
consistently upheld those laws. This is important to understand. This
is not a question of first impression here in this House. This is not a
matter of doubt or uncertainty. Laws similar to the law under
consideration here today have been adopted in a range of States across
the country. Those laws were challenged in court and the courts
consistently upheld them.
Let me give my colleagues some examples. In Smith v. Newsome, which
was decided in 1987, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Roe v.
Wade was, and I quote, ``immaterial to whether a State can prohibit the
destruction of a fetus by a third party.'' That is what the 11th
Circuit said.
The Minnesota Supreme Court echoed that sentiment in 1990 in the case
of State v. Merrill holding that, and once again I quote, ``Roe v. Wade
protects the woman's right of choice; it does not protect, much less
confer on an assailant, a third-party unilateral right to destroy the
fetus.''
In 1994, the California Supreme Court held in People v. Davis that
``Roe v. Wade principles are inapplicable to a statute that
criminalizes the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent.''
That is what the California Supreme Court had to say. I do not think
anyone would accuse them of being soft on the issue of abortion rights.
In State v. Coleman which was decided in 1997, the Ohio Court of
Appeals stated that ``Roe protects a woman's constitutional right. It
does not protect a third party's unilateral destruction of a fetus.''
Opponents of this legislation have also argued that the use of the
term ``unborn child'' is ``designed to inflame.'' They contend that the
use of this term may, in the words of those dissenting from the
Committee on the Judiciary report, and I quote them, ``result in a
major collision between the rights of the mother and the rights of''
the unborn. That is what the real objection to this bill is about. It
is about the use of the term ``unborn child'' in this bill. I think the
opponents of this bill, if they are candid, will acknowledge that. That
is the focus of their objection. They do not like the use of that
terminology. Let me say that this objection, in fact, reflects nothing
more than the semantical preferences of radical abortion advocates, and
is based on an apparent lack of knowledge of the widespread use of the
term ``unborn child'' in the decisions of the United States Supreme
Court and the United States Courts of Appeals, as well as in State
statutes and court decisions, and even in the legal writings of
abortion advocates.
The use of the term ``unborn child'' by the Supreme Court can be
illustrated by reference to Roe v. Wade itself, in which Justice
Blackmun used the term ``unborn children'' as synonymous with
``fetuses.'' Justice Blackmun also used the term ``unborn child'' in
Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe in which the Court struck down
the Georgia abortion statute.
Let me also bring the attention of the Members to a 1975 case, a case
decided not long after the Roe decision. This is the case of Burns v.
Alcala, where the Court held that unborn children were not dependent
children for purposes of obtaining aid under the Aid to Families With
Dependent Children program, commonly known as the AFDC welfare program.
Not only did Justice Powell use the term ``unborn child'' in the
majority opinion in Burns, but Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented in
the case and argued that unborn children, and I quote, ``unborn
children,'' those were his words in his dissent, should be covered as
dependent children under AFDC.

Now, would the opponents of H.R. 2436 seriously contend that Justice
Marshall was undermining the legal structure of abortion rights by
arguing that unborn children should be recognized under a Federal
statute? Do they seriously contend that that was the impact of what
Justice Marshall said in his opinion? As we all know, Justice Marshall
was a vigorous proponent of abortion rights. I would encourage the
Members to read his opinion.
He starts off in his dissent saying, ``When it passed the Social
Security Act in 1935, Congress gave no indication that it meant to
include or exclude unborn children from the definition of `dependent
child.' Nor has it shed any further light on the question other than to
consider, and fail to pass, legislation that would indisputably have
excluded unborn children from coverage.'' That is right there in
Justice Marshall's dissent in 1975. He goes on and talks about unborn
children time after time. He ends up his opinion dissenting from the
judgment of the Court in this case by saying, ``I cannot agree that the
act, in its present form, should be read to exclude the unborn from
eligibility.'' That was Justice Thurgood Marshall.
Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have also used the term ``unborn
child'' as synonymous with ``fetus.'' These cases include City of Akron
v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, decided in 1983; Webster v.
Reproductive Health Services, decided in 1989; and International Union
v. Johnson Controls, decided in 1991. There are so many decisions of
the U.S. Courts of Appeals using the term ``unborn child'' that it
would be too time consuming to go through them all. I would use up the
rest of the time in the debate simply going through those decisions of
the Courts of Appeals where the term ``unborn child'' was used. There
are also at least 19 State criminal statutes similar to H.R. 2436 that
currently use the term ``unborn child'' to refer to a fetus. These
statutes have been consistently upheld by the courts as I have already
explained.
We have these cases of the Supreme Court. We have these State laws.
We have the other Court opinions that use this term ``unborn child.''
That is part of the fabric of the law in this country. The structure of
abortion rights has not come tumbling down because the Court has used
that term. I think the argument that is being made here simply does not
make sense.
Even feminist abortion rights advocates such as Catherine MacKinnon
have used the term ``unborn child'' as synonymous with ``fetus.'' In an
article that was published in the Yale Law Journal entitled
``Reflections on Sex

[[Page H9057]]

Equality Under the Law,'' Professor MacKinnon conceded that, and I
quote, ``a fetus is a human form of life that is alive.'' That is what
Professor MacKinnon said, and I do not think she would take second
place to anyone in her support for abortion rights. In her defense of
abortion rights, Professor MacKinnon expressed her view that, and again
I quote, ``Many women have abortions as a desperate act of love for
their unborn children.'' I think the argument of the opponents of this
bill that focuses on their view about the harm that will be caused by
the use of the term ``unborn child'' is simply not supported by the
facts and is more a fantasy than anything else.
Finally, opponents of H.R. 2436 have argued that the bill lacks the
necessary mens rea requirement for a valid criminal law and is
therefore unconstitutional. I just want to point out briefly that this
argument ignores the well-established doctrine of ``transferred
intent'' in the criminal law. Anyone who knows anything about the
criminal law has to know something about transferred intent. This is
not some secret, dark mystery of the criminal law. This is a well-
established doctrine.
Under H.R. 2436, an individual may be guilty of an offense against an
unborn child only if he has committed an act of violence, with criminal
intent, upon a pregnant woman, thereby injuring or killing her unborn
child. Under the doctrine of transferred intent, the law considers the
criminal intent directed toward the pregnant woman to have also been
directed toward the unborn child who is the victim of the violence as
well.
This transferred intent doctrine was recognized in England as early
as 1576 and was adopted by American courts during the early days of the
Republic. A well-known criminal law commentator describes the
application of the doctrine to the crime of murder in language that is
remarkably similar to the language and operation of this legislation:
``Under the common law doctrine of transferred intent, a defendant
who intends to kill one person but instead kills a bystander is deemed
the author of whatever kind of homicide would have been committed had
he killed the intended victim.'' H.R. 2436 operates on these basic and
well-settled principles of the criminal law.
In summary, let me say that none of the legal challenges to this bill
can withstand serious scrutiny. All the opposition to the bill in fact
stems from an objection to the very concept of ``unborn children.''
That is what it boils down to, as I said earlier. The opponents insist
that a concept that is well-recognized in the law is somehow dangerous
and subversive, a concept that has been recognized by judges such as
Thurgood Marshall in his opinions on the Court. The opponents have a
great deal, I would suggest, invested in the illusion that the unborn
are entirely alien to the human family. Indeed, I have come reluctantly
to the conclusion that for the opponents of this bill, it is a chief
article of faith with them that the unborn are not human.

{time} 1500

It is their credo that the unborn are nothings, nonentities; as the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) said, ciphers. They dogmatically
adhere to the doctrine that the recognition for any purposes of the
value of life in the womb is forbidden by the Constitution of the
United States. Thus, they mount their opposition to this very
reasonable effort to protect the innocent unborn from brutal acts of
criminal violence.

Now I would humbly suggest that those who would embrace principles
that would drive them to oppose eminently reasonable legislation such
as this legislation proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina
should re-examine the principles they have embraced. And, regardless of
what we may think of the wisdom and justice of the Supreme Court's
decision on abortion rights, we should be able to understand that the
views expressed in opposition to this bill are views that have never
been embraced by the Supreme Court of the United States. These views go
far beyond anything the Supreme Court has ever said.
We must recognize this:
These views do violence to the reality of the pain and suffering that
is experienced when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman and injures or
kills the child in her womb. We have heard the tragic stories of these
cases, and I humbly submit that the arguments made against this bill
show an inadequate sensitivity to the reality of that pain and
suffering.
Mr. Chairman, the opponents of this bill have once again set off on a
flight from reality. I would appeal to the Members of this House to
reject their fallacious arguments. The only people who have anything to
fear from this bill are the criminals who engage in violent acts
against women and their unborn children. I urge the Members to vote in
favor of H.R. 2436.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to H.R. 2436, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This bill claims to protect fetuses
from assault and harm, but its goal is clearly to undercut the legal
foundations of a woman's right to choose. H.R. 2436 gives a fetus at
any stage of development from the time of fertilization the status of a
person under the law with interests and rights distinct from those of
the pregnant woman. This is in direct conflict with Roe v. Wade which
held that at no stage of development are fetuses persons under the law.
Mr. Chairman, we are deeply concerned about violence against women
and agree that harm to a woman which results in injury or harm to her
pregnancy deserves enhanced punishment. But H.R. 2436 is not the way to
accomplish this goal, and I regret that the previous speaker, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) seemed to suggest that those of us
who oppose this legislation have no sense of feeling or compassion or
hurt or tragic feelings about women who find themselves in such a
situation.
That is far from the truth. We understand the pain and suffering that
occur to these women when they are attacked and criminal violence is
done to them, but the criminal violence done to them should be treated
in ways that do not do violence to the fundamental constitutional
rights of all women.
I, therefore, strongly support the Lofgren substitute, the Motherhood
Protection Act of 1999 which recognizes that when harm comes to a
pregnancy, it happens to the woman who is pregnant. The Motherhood
Protection Act would establish a new Federal crime for any violent or
assaultive conduct against a pregnant woman that interrupts or
terminates her pregnancy with punishments ranging from 20 years to life
imprisonment. The Lofgren substitute accomplishes the stated goal of
H.R. 2436 and should be adopted by this House if we have the intent of
protecting women who are pregnant.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), my colleague on the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding this time to me, and I wanted to just bring to the attention
of my colleagues a concern that I have about this bill that is a little
bit different than the concern that has been expressed during the
primary debate on the bill, and I bring this to the attention of my
colleagues not to diminish the value of the debate that has occurred.
It is very important that this bill not undercut the right to choose
either directly or indirectly or by implication. But there is another
concern about this bill that I think we have lost sight of and that my
colleagues who came riding into Congress on the States rights horse
have lost sight of. Unfortunately, when they start to talk about
abortion issues and issues of this kind, they lose sight of the fact
that we operate in a Federal form of government under which certain
rights are reserved to the States, and for the Federal Government to
exercise jurisdiction in a particular area, there has to be some
particular Federal nexus involved.
Under this bill my colleagues would have us believe that because the
Federal law and the Federal Government has an interest in protecting,
for example, Federal law enforcement officials,

[[Page H9058]]

that that same interest would expand to protecting a fetus or an unborn
child in the womb of that Federal law enforcement official. The nexus
for protecting Federal law enforcement officials is the fact that they
are Federal law enforcement officials, and we as a Federal Government,
therefore, have a vested interest and a constitutional right to protect
them. We cannot take that same constitutional right that the Federal
Government has and take it to the next level.
So in this case that has been talked about over and over and over in
North Carolina, they would have us believe that because the mother was
protected under Federal law when she was driving down the street in
North Carolina, the child of the mother should have the same Federal
protection. In fact, it is the State law that we have to look to to
protect the interests of the unborn child or the child in that case
just as we could not extend Federal law to protect a born child or a
passenger in that car with the mother. We do not have the right in our
Federal system to extend Federal law willy nilly, and there is simply
no basis in a lot of the instances that this bill covers under Federal
law for exercising jurisdiction.
Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my colleagues to oppose the bill for
that reason.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman
for yielding this time to me.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2436 and in strong support of the
substitute bill. H.R. 2436 would make it a Federal crime to knowingly
damage a fertilized egg during an assault against a pregnant mother.
Now I absolutely agree that it is a tragedy for a woman to lose a
pregnancy during a crime, and I strongly support the approach that many
States have taken to toughen penalties for an assault against a
pregnant woman, and that is, in fact, the approach that my colleague is
taking in her substitute. However, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2436 would do
nothing to protect the woman further, but instead would create for the
first time a legal definition that a fertilized egg is entitled to
protection under the law as a person.
This bill is indeed breathtaking in its scope. While the examples
used are drawn from criminal assaults of women in advanced stages of
pregnancy, its real concern reaches to the impact of the violence on
the embryo. Roe v. Wade makes a distinction between the embryo in the
first trimester and the post viability embryo, and that is the
distinction that State laws honor.
This bill makes no such distinction because it deals with the
fertilized eggs at all stages of development; and, therefore, it opens
the opportunity that if a woman is assaulted in sort of a routine
assault and battery case and 3 weeks later has a miscarriage, that
miscarriage can up the assault and battery charges to murder though she
did not know she was pregnant at the time and neither did the
assaultant.
So this bill goes way beyond what it appears to do, and while I
certainly think that a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy who is
assaulted and the fetus killed, that assaultant deserves a punishment
that is far more severe than if he had not been attacking a pregnant
woman. I think this bill goes way beyond that by dealing with a
fertilized egg and opening up the kinds of possibilities I cite, and
the next step, which is not contained in this bill, but it is the only
logical next step, is to disregard the intent of the assaultant. Why,
if it is a criminal assault, should it be seen as a crime? When it is
simply the destruction of the fetus, it should not be seen as a crime?
Mr. Chairman, that is why those of us who support a woman's right to
abortion are deeply concerned about this legislation. It does clearly
in its language exclude abortion, but the only difference between an
abortion and a criminal attack is the criminality of the attacker and
the criminal intent. But the effect on the fetus is the same, and all
my colleagues focus on in this bill is the fetal effect, and they
define ``fetus'' as fertilized egg even before the woman knows she is
pregnant.
So I urge opposition to the bill and support for the substitute.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this
time to me.
As my colleagues know, why do we think this bill is fundamentally an
attack on choice? Because if the real effort is to protect women, we
can do that in other ways, and we must do that in other ways, but if we
really want to do that, we should pass the Violence Against Women's
Act. This bill has not come up before on the floor of this House, but
if we really want to protect women, pass the Violence Against Women
Act. If we really want to protect or if we really want to provide more
sincere and serious punishment should an assault on a woman result in
the loss or damage to a pregnancy, we can do that by passing the
Lofgren amendment.
We can do those things, and we should do those things, but here is
where I believe this bill is fundamentally disingenuous: As my
colleagues know, a couple years ago I visited a women's shelter where
they took women in after being victims of domestic or other violence.
That women's shelter turned away 1,200 women a year because they did
not have adequate funding, 1,200 women who had been the victims or
believe they were about to be the victims of violence were turned away
because that shelter did not have adequate funding.

{time} 1515

If we really care about women, if we really care about the well-being
of children, we will pass the Violence Against Women Act, we will fully
fund programs like women's shelters, we will fund programs to help
children, to promote safe and secure births for children.
But this act fundamentally is an assault on the constitutional right
to choose. That is what it is about, make no mistake about it. If you
support the right to a safe, legal abortion, you should reject this
act, and you should support the Lofgren substitute, which is what I
will surely do, and I encourage my colleagues to do as well.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, neither Congress nor the United States Supreme Court
has ever afforded legal status to an unborn child, and it is
undisputed, I think, that H.R. 436 would be the first such
congressional recognition. Similarly, there is no precedent in the
history of the Supreme Court for such a rule.
In the 26 years since Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court
has never recognized an unborn child as having legal status. Outside of
the abortion context, the Court has been asked only twice to uphold a
State's determination that an unborn child should be afforded the
protection of the law, and those two cases, Burns v. Alcala and Webster
v. Reproductive Health Services, are the only two cases in the 26 years
since Roe, in which the Supreme Court has been asked to recognize the
``unborn child'' as having legal status. In both cases, the Supreme
Court refused to do so.
Those of us who are here today standing up for the personal right of
a woman to determine her own reproductive future are very concerned and
very opposed to this bill.
I have heard the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution go
on at some length about how this really would not disturb Roe v. Wade,
and I do not agree. But I would also like to point out that the
chairman and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of
the committee, opposed Roe v. Wade. That is their right to do so. The
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) said today earlier that he
opposed abortion in all cases, including cases of rape and incest. I do
not agree with him, but I respect that that is his position. In fact,
if it were up to the chairman, he would repeal Roe v. Wade, and I think
this is part of the strategy to go down that road.
We do not see it the same way, and I wish that we could have that
debate in a different context, not in the context of violence against
women, because, in fact, after we have finished debate on this bill, I
will be offering a substitute with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) that would achieve the goal that is allegedly being sought
here today, which is protection of women who are pregnant against
assault that

[[Page H9059]]

might impair or damage their pregnancy. We can do that together, if
that is in fact our goal. I think that goal is a worthy one.
I would urge that we do so and that we reserve the debate over
reproductive choice for another time, another day, a different vehicle,
and that we be very open about what the dispute is about. If opponents
of reproductive choice for American women want to bring this issue to a
conclusion, they ought to bring a pro-life constitutional amendment to
this floor.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I spent days, hours, a lot of time with a lot of people
to draft in bill for an express purpose, not to have an abortion
debate, but we will have it. This is a free and open House. You can
talk about what you want to.
My goal is to have a statute that will put people in jail when they
do harm. When they do bad things, they suffer bad consequences.
California has a statute very similar to this that has been in
existence for 29 years. Go open up a phone book and see if you can have
an abortion in California. You can. There are 24 states that have made
it a crime to destroy an unborn child by a third party, and a woman can
still get a legal abortion.
This bill exempts consensual abortions because it is about criminals,
not abortions. Sometime, somewhere, unfortunately, given human nature,
there will be a woman assaulted where Federal jurisdiction exists and
she will lose her baby, and I want to make sure that person goes to
jail for taking her baby away from her when she chooses to have it. I
hope you will help me do it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, today in this chamber we rise yet another time
to protect a women's right to choose. As one of 37 pro-choice women in
the Congress, this is an issue for which we must stand and speak time
and time again. Anti-choice Republicans continue to take every possible
opportunity to raise legislation aimed at undermining a woman's right
to choose. Since the beginning of the 104th Congress, the House has
taken over 100 votes on family planning and choice--a phenomenal
number. From the move to override President Clinton's veto of the
partial birth abortion ban, to the so-called ``Child Custody Protection
Act,'' to requiring parental consent to access Title X services, the
``Unborn Victims of Violence Act'' that we address today is yet another
example.
I deplore acts of violence against women, and stand as the strongest
of advocates against domestic violence and domestic abuse; however
while this legislation purports to protect pregnant women, the reality
is that it undermines a woman's right to choose. The bill would
criminalize death or injury that occurs at any stage of development,
from conception to birth. H.R. 2436 would recognize the fetus as a
person, with the same legal standing as the woman's--a status long
sought by the conservative movement to attack the Supreme Courts'
ruling in Roe v Wade.
In order to protect women from violence, this Congress should be
passing H.R. 357, the Violence Against Women Act of 1999. In order to
ensure healthy pregnancies for both mothers and babies, this Congress
should be passing legislation to increase access to prenatal care. In
order to support healthly children, this Congress should be passing
legislation to support and strengthen WIC nutrition and food stamp
programs. But instead we are debating yet another piece of anti-choice
legislation.
I urge my colleagues to recognize this bill for what it is: a
misguided initiative, dangerous and harmful to women's rights. I urge a
``no'' vote on H.R. 2436.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2436,
the so-called ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act.'' While I whole-
heartedly agree that acts of violence against a pregnant woman deserve
severe punishment, this bill does absolutely nothing to further that
goal. Ironically, these pregnant women are not mentioned in the actual
legislative text. Instead, this bill goes so far as to redefine the
fetus as a fully-independent person separate from the mother. This is a
definition that even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch
opponent of Roe v. Wade, opposed.
Instead, I believe we must do more to protect pregnant mothers, and
am therefore supporting the ``Motherhood Protection Act,'' introduced
by Representative Lofgren. This measure provides increased penalties
for crimes against pregnant women. This common-sense legislation would
provide true protections for pregnant women without undermining the
Constitutionally-protected right to choose or attempting to change the
definitions of ``personhood'' under the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution. This measure makes sense, and achieves the stated goals
of the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lofgren
substitute and vote against H.R. 2436.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R.
2436, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This legislation is clearly
another attempt to take away a woman's right to choose.
Under this bill, a person can be prosecuted for harming a fetus,
regardless of whether the person is prosecuted for harming the mother.
No knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to cause harm is necessary for
prosecution. That means that even without determining intent, one could
receive the full punishment normally associated with intentional
murder. As the father of two beautiful children, my daughter Sarah less
than a week old, I feel strongly that any crime that intentionally
causes harm to a mother and her unborn child is despicable and must be
punished. This legislation, however, is not the way to achieve that.
Granting independent legal status to a fetus does not help to stop
violence against women.
Let's work together to protect all women and their children from
violence rather than using this veiled legislation to restrict a
woman's right to choose.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I remain baffled at this body's ability to
undermine a woman's fundamental right to choose. What's more, I am
disturbed at the latest trend of crafting vague, amorphous legislative
language that flies in the face of the proper intent of legislation by
those who seek to limit or abolish this right.
The majority of Americans are pro-choice and know that we must
protect a woman's right to choose to have an abortion while at the same
time working to make abortion rare. The other side chooses to ignore
this majority. They have determined that the best way to do this is to
craft vague, and purportedly narrow, legislative language that
undercuts this fundamental right by creating vast legal loopholes and
ambiguously worded statutes that result in the near elimination of
abortions.
Last Friday, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down three
such vaguely worded statutes from Iowa, Nebraska and Arkansas that
posed as legislation to prohibit one form of late-term abortion. The
Court recognized the backdoor attempt to ban abortions completely and
the stifling affect such broad language would have on the health and
safety of women in these states.
There is not a single member of the House of Representatives who does
not think that criminals who brutally attack a pregnant woman should
not be held accountable for their actions and punished to the full
extent of the law. But if you expect us to naively believe that
protecting pregnant women is the only intent of this legislation, you
are sadly mistaken. This legislation fails to address many of the very
real needs to protect women from violence in its backdoor attempt to
undermine the essence of Roe v. Wade.
If we are addressing violence to a fetus in utero, the one very
large, glaring omission from the legislation we are debating today is
the woman carrying that pregnancy. As worded, this legislation turns
the woman in to a mere vessel and ignores the simple truth that the
abhorrent violent acts we have heard so much about on the floor today
are happening to a woman.
We should punish people who harm a pregnant woman--but unfortunately
we are not debating that fact today because the woman is missing from
this legislation. I welcome the opportunity to discuss legislation that
would enhance penalties for criminals who commit violent, deplorable
crimes against a pregnant woman, particularly if that crime results in
the loss of the pregnancy. But the fact that the violent act against
the woman is ignored by this legislation, reveals its true intent. This
legislation seeks to do one thing--create a separate legal status for a
fetus, embryo, blastocyst or zygote to lay the groundwork for a fresh
assault on Roe v. Wade.

If this Congress wants to protect women, and promote healthy
pregnancies, then it should reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.
But, both the Department of Justice and the National Coalition Against
Domestic Violence have said that this bill fails to help women victims
of violence and yet again, diverts attention away from the true victim
of the crime, the woman.
You cannot toss aside the health and safety of millions of women with
legislation that masquerades as an effort to protect them.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the
Lofgren-Conyers amendment to H.R. 2436, the Unborn Victims of Violence
Act. The bill is unfortunately

[[Page H9060]]

flawed and needs to be modified because it fails to address the
underlying issue--violence against women--pregnant or not. The majority
of crimes against women occur during domestic violence and drunk
driving incidents. I supported the Violence Against Women Act [VAWA]
when it first became law in 1994. VAWA set up a national domestic
violence hotline, grants for law enforcement, prosecution, and battered
women shelters to combat violence and sexual assault. This Congress, I
am a proud cosponsor of VAWA II which reauthorizes the original VAWA
1994 Act and has other provisions to further help protect women from
violence. For example, the bill addresses sexual assault prevention and
combating violence in the workplace.
When we create laws that affect women, we cannot take the woman out
of the equation which is what H.R. 2436 does. The woman is the victim
of the crime and one of the best ways to protect a woman is to have
VAWA II passed. I think everyone agrees that crimes against women are
horrible. It's especially tragic when the woman is pregnant and that
needs to be appropriately addressed which is why I am supporting the
Lofgren-Conyers substitute, the Motherhood Protection Act of 1999.
The Lofgren-Conyers substitute creates a federal criminal offense for
harm to a pregnant woman and recognizes that the pregnant woman is the
victim of a crime causing termination or harm during a pregnancy. The
substitute provides for a maximum 20-year sentence for injury to a
pregnant woman and a maximum life sentence for the termination of a
pregnancy due to the assault. By focusing on the harm to the pregnant
woman, it provides a deterrent against violence against women. I
encourage my colleagues to support the Lofgren-Conyers substitute.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2436, and
commend my friend from South Carolina for bringing it to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, this bill has evoked the usual complaints from liberals
in this country who refuse to accept any restrictions on when, how, or
why an unborn child is killed. Until today, they had only defended the
``right'' of any woman to ``choose'' to kill her unborn child. How,
however, it seems that they are willing to extend that protection to
criminals who kill an unborn child while committing a crime for which
they will be punished under federal law.
Now, before abortion rights activists paint this debate as one about
a woman's `right to choose,' let's examine a scenario that would be
covered by this bill. First of all, if a woman is pregnant, and has not
taken steps to end the pregnancy, it is probably safe to assume that
she has chosen to bring her child into the world. When an individual,
while committing a crime, harms that woman, and kills her unborn child,
her choice to have her baby has been taken away, and it is that action
which this bill and its sponsor seek to punish. If anything, this bill
is the epitome of protecting the right to choose.
Free societies such as ours are based on giving up certain freedoms
in exchange for security. Congress has, in the past, passed obscenity
laws, which reasonably restrict the First Amendment. We have also made
it illegal for known felons to purchase firearms, a restriction on the
Second Amendment. All freedoms have reasonable limitations, yet
abortion rights advocates in this nation, and specifically in this
body, refuse to accept any limitations on the right to kill an unborn
child. We have seen many of those individuals come before this body,
listing the names of children killed by gun violence. Is it any less
tragic when an unborn child is killed, simply because it has not been
given a name yet? The opposition to this bill shines the spotlight of
truth on abortion rights activists' belief that the death of an unborn
child, under any circumstances, is all right with them. Quite frankly,
Mr. Chairman, that attitude sickens me, and I would hope that it
sickens the rest of our society.
I urge all of my colleagues to support decency, support human life,
and support the choice of pregnant women to give birth to their
children, by supporting this bill.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, pro-life Members of Congress are ecstatic
over the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, touting it as a good step
toward restoring respect for life, and once again criminalizing
abortion. This optimism and current effort must be seriously
challenged.
As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist, I strongly condemn the
events of the last third of the 20th century in which we have seen the
casual acceptance of abortion on demand.
The law's failure to protect the weakest, smallest and most innocent
of all the whole human race has undermined our respect for all life,
and therefore for all liberty. As we have seen, once life is no longer
unequivocally protected, the loss of personal liberty quickly follows.
The Roe v. Wade ruling will in time prove to be the most
significantly flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. Not only
for its codification, through an unconstitutional court action, of a
social consensus that glorified promiscuity and abortion of convenience
and for birth control, but for flaunting as well the constitutional
system that requires laws of this sort be left to the prerogative of
the states alone. A single ``Roe v. Wade'' ruling by one state would be
far less harmful than a Supreme Court ruling that nullifies all state
laws protecting the unborn.
Achieving the goal of dehumanizing all human life, by permitting the
casting aside all pre-born life, any time prior to birth, including
partially born human beings, Roe v. Wade represents a huge change in
attitudes toward all life and liberty. Now pro-life Members are engaged
in a similar process of writing more national laws in hopes of
balancing the court's error. This current legislative effort is just as
flawed.
Traditionally, throughout our history, except for the three
constitutional provisions, all crimes of violence have been--and should
remain--state matters. Yet this legislation only further undermines the
principle of state jurisdiction, and our system of law enforcement,
which has served us well for most of our history.
Getting rid of Roe v. Wade through a new court ruling or by limiting
federal jurisdiction would return this complex issue to the states.
Making the killing of an unborn infant a federal crime, as this bill
does, further institutionalizes the process of allowing federal courts
to destroy the constitutional jurisdiction of the states. But more
importantly, the measure continues the practice of only protecting some
life, by allowing unborn children to be killed by anyone with an
``M.D.'' after his name.
By protecting the abortionist, this legislation carves out a niche in
the law that further ingrains in the system the notion that the willful
killing of an innocent human being is not deserving of our attention.
With more than a million children a year dying at the hands of
abortionists, it is unwise that we ignore these acts for the sake of
political expediency.
Pro-abortion opponents of this legislation are needlessly concerned
regarding its long-term meaning, and supporters are naively hoping that
unintended consequences will not occur.
State laws have already established clearly that a fetus is a human
being deserving protection; for example, inheritance laws acknowledge
that the unborn child does enjoy the estate of his father. Numerous
states already have laws that correctly punishes those committing acts
of murder against a fetus.
Although this legislation is motivated by the best of intentions of
those who strongly defend the inalienable rights of the unborn, it is
seriously flawed, and will not achieve its intended purpose. For that
reason I shall vote against the bill and for the sanctity of life and
the rights of the states, and against the selected protection of
abortionists.
Mr. Chairman, today Congress will vote to further instill and codify
the ill-advised Roe versus Wade decision. While it is the independent
duty of each branch of the federal government to act Constitutionally,
Congress will likely ignore not only its Constitutional limits but
earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999, H.R. 2436, would amend
title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting
unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the
class of victims to which unconstitutional (but already-existing)
federal murder and assault statutes apply, the federal government moves
yet another step closer to a national police state.
Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing
every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than
to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure
by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil,
totalitarianism. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of
Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent crimes initiated against
the unborn?
Nevertheless, our federal government is, constitutionally, a
government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates
the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or
enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks
any authority or consent of the governed and only the state
governments, their designees, or the people in their private market
actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is
brutally clear in stating ``The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' Our nation's
history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended
to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of
historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could
reasonably portray it differently.
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to
whom federal murder and assault statutes apply--it further

[[Page H9061]]

entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe versus Wade decision (the
Court's intrusion into rights of states and their previous attempts to
protect by criminal statute the unborn's right not to be aggressed
against). By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists
and the mothers of the unborn (as is the case with this legislation),
Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not a
federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary
Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the
assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill
does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the
unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require
intent to kill (which implies knowledge) on the part of the aggressor.
Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist
with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution
while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child's existence is
subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. (The bill exempts the
murderer from the death sentence--yet another diminution of the
unborn's personhood status.) It is becoming more and more difficult for
Congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government
simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a
non-person in others.

In this first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal
Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said ``the trend to
federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts
. . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.''
Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political
pressure to ``appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill
or sensational crime.''
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional
protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal
criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal
crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high
seas, and counterfeiting (and, because the constitution was amended to
allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or
transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime).
``Concurrent'' jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the
past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to
be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S.
Constitution specifies that no ``person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .'' In other words, no
person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United
States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being
tried by both the federal government and a state government for the
same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger
of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is
that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to
being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for
federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is
neither prudent nor constitutional.
Occasionally the argument is put forth that states may be less
effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those
who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the
Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the
integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via
the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as
full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those
who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal
government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which
allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal
government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV,
Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from
one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed
an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon
states in working with one another rather than relying on a national,
unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to
centralization of a police power.
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well
as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller,
independent jurisdictions--it is called competition and, yes,
governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete.
We have obsessed so much over the notion of ``competition'' in this
country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior
products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the
dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow
someone who serves to provide value as made obvious by their voluntary
exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of
scale in the private marketplace. Curiously, at the same time, we
further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered
by force rather than voluntary exchange.
When small governments become too oppressive with their criminal
laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a ``competing''
jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay
taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to
provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona.
If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government
intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes
more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with
one's feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments.
Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen
mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend
to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility
less and less practical.
Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence
is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left
to the states' criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal,
constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to
federalize such an issue. Numerous states have adequately protected the
unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the federal
government's unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v.
Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 2436 ignores the danger of further
federalizing that which is properly reserved to state governments and,
in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the bill of
rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby
and the bathwater. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2436, The
Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2436, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Under current federal law, an
individual who commits a federal crime of violence against a pregnant
women receives no additional punishment for killing or injuring the
fetus. I think this is wrong and should be changed.
An incident that occurred in my district illustrates why this law is
so desperately needed. in 1996, a man enlisted in the Air Force and
stationed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base--a jurisdiction which is
governed by federal military law--severely beat his wife who was 34
weeks pregnant at the time. Although the women survived the attack, her
uterus split open, expelling the baby into her mother's abdominal
cavity, where the baby died.
The man was arrested and charged with several criminal offenses for
the attack. However, Air Force prosecutors concluded that they could
not charge him with a separate offense for killing the baby because,
although Ohio law recognizes an unborn child as a victim, federal law
does not.
In 1998, that judgment was concurred in the U.S. Air Force Court of
Criminal Appeals ruling on that case. The court said, ``Federal
homicide statutes reach only the killing of a born human being . . .
(Congress) has not spoken with regard to the protection of an unborn
person.''
Mr. Chairman, I believe it is time that Congress speaks on this issue
by passing H.R. 2436. Many states, like Ohio, have passed laws to
recognize unborn children as human victims of violent crimes. However,
these laws do not apply on federal property. I think they should and
therefore would urge my colleagues to pass the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2436, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This bill would give pregnancy from
beginning to birth the same legal standing under federal law that we
currently give a person. This legislation would establish a separate
offense and punishment for federal crimes committed when death or
bodily injury to the fetus occurs. Likewise, the bill establishes the
same penalty for a violation under federal law if the injury or death
occurred to the unborn fetus' mother.
This bill is designed for one purpose: to undermine the decision in
Roe v. Wade. This legislation is an effort to endow legal rights to
fetuses--in fact a backdoor way of elevating the legal status of a
fetus--which has been the cornerstone of the conservative anti-choice
agenda. This is just another way of writing a Human Life Amendment, a
decades-long effort to expand the meaning of the word ``person'' under
the constitution to include unborn offspring at every state of their
biological development. Anti-choice Members of Congress know that they
are trying to fool the American people.
They would also have us believe in their crusade to protect unborn
victims of violence--but what about the born victims of violence?
Every day in America, 13 children and youth under age 20 die from
firearms. If this Congress is so concerned with the safety of children,
why has it not passed the gun control provisions approved by the Senate
that would eliminate gun show loopholes and require mandatory safety
locks with firearms sales?

[[Page H9062]]

The conference committee on H.R. 1501 and the Senate gun legislation
has met only once publicly--and that was before we adjourned for the
August recess--to read their opening statements.
Every day in America, 1,353 babies are born without health insurance
and 2,162 babies are born into poverty as a result of welfare reform
legislation passed by many who remain in the majority of this Congress
today. We know now that children are losing critical benefits like
Medicaid and food stamps. The Urban Institute cites falling welfare
rolls as the ``primary reason'' that an estimated 500,000 fewer adults
and children nationwide participated in Medicaid in 1996 than in 1995.
Loss of Medicaid and the absence of employer-sponsored health insurance
coverage make it extremely difficult for former recipients to obtain
health care for themselves and their children.
In addition, the Children's Defense Fund's study entitled ``Welfare
to What?'' cites troubling findings by NETWORK, a coalition of Catholic
organizations, on 455 children in California, Florida, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and
Texas during late 1997. The study found that 36% of children in
families who had recently lost cash assistance were ``eating less or
skipping meals due to cost.'' The bottom line is that families who lose
welfare often lose food stamps, making it impossible to buy sufficient
food.
The same disregard for our children is evident in Congress' refusal
to hold states accountable for maintaining high levels of quality in
our child care centers. Today in America, more than 80% of child care
services in the U.S. is thought to be of poor or average quality.
Still, Congress turns its head and allocate billions of child care
dollars a year with very little assurance of quality, allowing our
children to be placed in substandard conditions.
The crimes of domestic violence is a horrendous one, and should be
punished, but this blatant attempt to placate the radical right
belittles the severity of domestic violence by using women and their
pregnancies as tools to elevate the legal status of a fetus. It is
cowardly, and it dishonors the lives of women who have survived, and
those who have succumbed to the terrible tragedy of domestic violence.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, as the Declaration of Independence
declares, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit
of Happiness.''
I believe that one thing that makes America great is our defense of
those incapable of defending themselves. Proverbs admonishes us to
``Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves'' (31:8). It still
is our duty to stand up for the weaker members of our society.
Tragically, under current federal law there are no consequences for
injury or death to an unborn child. Where is the justice for the
smallest and most helpless members of our society?
The intentional attack on a mother and her baby requires that justice
be served. Our justice system is based on the protection of the
innocent and the punishment of the guilty. The attacker must take
responsibility for his actions and make restitution to his victims.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would make the offense to the baby
a separate crime because it's a separate person. In this situation
there are two victims and both of their lives should receive equal
recompense under federal law.
Twenty-four states already have laws that recognize the unborn child
as a victim. It is time that we agree with nearly half the states and
provide grieving parents recognition of their loss.
Mr. Chairman, with the passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
we will be able to proudly say we are ``one nation, under God, with
liberty and justice for all''.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:

H.R. 2436

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Unborn Victims of Violence
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.

(a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after chapter 90 the following:

``CHAPTER 90A--PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN

``Sec.
``1841. Protection of unborn children.

``Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

``(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of
the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby
causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section
1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct
takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this
section.
``(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph,
the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the
punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had
that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
``(B) An offense under this section does not require proof
that--
``(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or
should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying
offense was pregnant; or
``(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or
bodily injury to, the unborn child.
``(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby
intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child,
that person shall be punished as provided under sections
1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing
or attempting to kill a human being.
``(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death
penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this
section.
``(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the
following:
``(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229,
242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1), and (i),
924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120,
1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505,
1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and
(a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119,
2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332,
2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.
``(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of
1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)).
``(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2283).
``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit
the prosecution--
``(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained or
for which such consent is implied by law in a medical
emergency;
``(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the
pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
``(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
``(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child'
means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or
`child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo
sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the
womb.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to chapter 90 the following new item:

``90A. Protection of unborn children........................1841''.....

SEC. 3. MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.

(a) Protection of Unborn Children.--Subchapter X of chapter
47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), is amended by inserting after section 919
(article 119) the following new section:

``Sec. 919a. Art. 119a. Protection of unborn children

``919a. 119a. Protection of unborn children.''.

The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except
those printed in House Report 106-348. Each amendment may be offered
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, debatable
for a time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, shall be not subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes

[[Page H9063]]

the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately follows
another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first question
shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 106-348.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Canady of Florida

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Canady of Florida:
In section 1841 of title 18, United States Code, as
proposed to be added by section 2(a)--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)(C), insert ``, instead of being
punished under subparagraph (A),'' after ``shall''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(1)--
(A) insert ``, or a person authorized by law to act on her
behalf,'' after ``woman''; and
(B) strike ``in a medical emergency''.
Strike section 3 and insert the following:

SEC. 3. MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.

``Sec. 919a. Art. 119a. Protection of unborn children

``(a)(1) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in
conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in
subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily
injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, a child,
who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is
guilty of a separate offense under this section.
``(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph,
the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the
punishment provided under this chapter for that conduct had
that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
``(B) An offense under this section does not require proof
that--
``(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or
should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying
offense was pregnant; or
``(ii) the accused intended to cause the death of, or
bodily injury to, the unborn child.
``(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby
intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child,
that person shall, instead of being punished under
subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 880,
918, and 919(a) of this title (articles 80, 118, and 119(a))
for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human
being.
``(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death
penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this
section.
``(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are
sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926, and
928 of this title (articles 118, 119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a),
122, 124, 126, and 128).
``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit
the prosecution--
``(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person
authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or
for which such consent is implied by law;
``(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the
pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
``(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
``(d) In this section, the term `unborn child' means a
child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who
is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at
any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such subchapter is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 919 the following new item:

``919a. 119a. Protection of unborn children.''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 313, the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Canady and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Canady.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, straightforward amendment that will
accomplish two important things. First, the amendment will bring the
Uniform Code of Military Justice provisions of the bill which are found
in section 3 into conformity with the portion of the bill that was
reported by the Committee on the Judiciary with an amendment.
Section 3 of the bill was referred to the Committee on Armed
Services, but the Committee on Armed Services has waived jurisdiction
over the bill. This amendment, which the chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services has approved, will simply make the two sections of the
bill operate in the same manner.
Second, the amendment will make two minor changes to clarify points
raised by opponents of the legislation. The amendment will clarify that
the punishment authorized under the bill for intentionally killing or
attempting to kill an unborn child is in lieu of, not in addition to,
the punishment otherwise provided under the bill. The amendment will
also clarify that the exemption for abortion-related conduct includes
situations in which a surrogate decision maker acts on behalf of the
pregnant woman.
These technical changes reflect the intent of the drafters and do not
effect substantive changes in the bill. I urge my colleagues to support
this conforming and technical amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Chair of our subcommittee, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Canady), would have us believe that this is a technical
amendment. It is not. It is a very substantive amendment, and we should
be aware of that.
The chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Canady), would have us believe that the Committee on Armed Services
waived jurisdiction over this bill because it thought it was an
uncontroversial bill. The truth of the matter is that there is a whole
section of this bill which has never, ever, been debated in any
committee of this House.
The bill came to the Committee on the Judiciary. We had a debate on a
part of the bill that was under the Committee on the Judiciary's
jurisdiction. We exercised our rights to debate that part.
We tried to offer amendments to the part of the bill that was under
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services. We were denied
that right in the Committee on the Judiciary on the parliamentary
ruling that we did not have jurisdiction over that part of the bill.
Now, on the floor of the House, after the Committee on Armed Services
has decided not to take jurisdiction over the bill and consider
amendments in the committee, we are here on the floor of the House
making major substantive changes to this bill.
Now, what does this amendment do? It says an offense under this
section does not require proof that, one, the person engaging in the
conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of
the underlying offense was pregnant. That means if you kill an unborn
fetus, you do not even have to know there was a fetus in the womb. You
do not have to have any kind of intent. There is no criminal law in
this country that ought to be passed that gives that right.
If we are going to pass it in this House, at least we ought to have
jurisdiction in a committee; and a committee ought to take up the bill
and debate it in the committee. We ought not use the processes of the
House to our advantage and say, well, this is a parliamentary ruling,
we cannot deal with it in the Committee on the Judiciary, and then tell
the Committee on Armed Services, well, we do not want you to deal with
it over there, and then try to accomplish the same thing that should
have been done in committee on the floor of the House.
Mr. Chairman, this is just patently wrong. The proper thing to do
would be to send this bill back to one of these two committees, and if
we are going to make substantive changes to the bill, major policy
changes, I might add, to make those changes in the committee.
Now, there are some people from the Committee on Armed Services I am
sure that are getting ready to jump up and say, yes, we support this.
But what about the other people on the Committee on Armed Services?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely correct. I did come to the
floor.

[[Page H9064]]

I chair the Subcommittee on Military Personnel with jurisdiction over
the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the military legal system. We
watched the Committee on the Judiciary in its debate and the bill was
reported out. I recommended to the chairman that we waive sequential
referral and the bill came to the floor. I support the manager's
amendment.
Once this bill was reported, it is fitting that the Uniform Code of
Justice be compatible with the Federal statute, and that is why we
procedurally waived jurisdiction.
The need for the manager's amendment and the request for support by
this body is illustrated by the case of United States versus Robbins.
In that case, Gregory Robbins, an airman, and his wife, who was over 8
months pregnant with a daughter that they had named Jasmine, resided at
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, an area of exclusive Federal
jurisdiction.
On September 12, 1996, Mr. Robbins wrapped his fist in a T-shirt to
reduce the chance that it would inflict visible bruises, and he badly
beat his wife by striking her repeatedly in the face and abdomen with
his fist. Mrs. Robbins survived the attack with a severely battered
eye, a broken nose and a ruptured uterus. She was taken to the
emergency room, but medical personnel could not detect the baby's
heartbeat.
Now, some may refer to that baby as a fetal mass, but that was a
viable fetus. They could not detect a heartbeat, and the doctors
performed emergency surgery on Mrs. Robbins and found Jasmine laying
sideways, dead, in Mrs. Robbins' abdominal cavity.
As a result of Mrs. Robbins' repeated blows, it ruptured her uterus,
the placenta was torn from the inner uterine wall, which expelled
Jasmine into the abdominal cavity.
Air Force prosecutors recognized that the Federal homicide statutes
reach only the killing of a born human being, and that Congress has not
spoken with regard to the protection of the unborn person. As a result,
the prosecutors attempted to prosecute Mr. Robbins for Jasmine's death
under Ohio's fetal homicide law, using Article 134 of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice.

{time} 1530

Article 134 incorporates by reference all Federal crimes, criminal
statutes and those State laws made Federal law via, quote, the
Assimilated Crimes Act.
Mr. Robbins pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter for Jasmine's
death, but the legality of assimilating Ohio's Federal homicide law
through article 134 is now the subject of Mr. Robbins' appeal to the
Court of Appeals for the Armed Services.
If the Court of Appeals agrees with Mr. Robbins that the assimilation
of Ohio's law was improper, he will receive no additional punishment
for the killing of the baby, Jasmine. Moreover, had Mr. Robbins
battered his wife in a State that had no fetal homicide law, he could
have been charged with only battery for the beating of his eight-month
pregnant wife and there would be no legal consequence for the killing
of their unborn child. That is the purpose of the manager's amendment,
to make it compatible.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) has the
right to close debate, and each gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Watt), made a reference to my comments with respect to the Committee on
Armed Services. I think he misunderstood what I said. I know he did not
intend to misrepresent what I said.
I said nothing about the purpose of the committee and waiving
jurisdiction. I simply reported what they had done. I did not say that
they viewed it as noncontroversial. The gentleman may have
misunderstood that, but I wanted to make that clear. The Members of the
Committee on Armed Services can speak for themselves.
The truth of the matter is that in this amendment we are simply
conforming the provisions of the bill that were within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Armed Services with the changes in the structure of
the bill that were made in the Committee on the Judiciary on the parts
that we had jurisdiction over.
This is a conforming amendment. I can understand that the gentleman
is opposed to the bill but this simply makes the bill internally
consistent, and I say that it should not be controversial. It is truly
a conforming and technical amendment.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, as masterful as the
chairman who spoke on behalf of the Committee on Armed Services is, he
cannot speak for the Committee on Armed Services.
We bring a major substantive change to this bill to the floor, give
it 10 minutes of debate, 5 minutes per side; never has been in the
Committee on Armed Services. The chairman of the committee comes out
and says I am here to speak for the committee. What about all the other
people on the Committee on Armed Services? When are they going to have
an opportunity to weigh in on this major substantive provision to this
bill?
That is what I am talking about when I say we have subverted the
processes of this House using parliamentary procedures.
Basically, what we have done is deprive the minority of the Committee
on Armed Services of the right to weigh in on this important issue. The
chairman waived jurisdiction. They did not bring it into the committee,
and they did not do anything. There are 60 Members. Fifty-nine of them
have not spoken.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote,
and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 313, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House
Report 106-348.

Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Ms. Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute offered by
Ms. Lofgren:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Motherhood Protection Act of
1999''.

SEC. 2. CRIMES AGAINST A WOMAN--TERMINATING HER PREGNANCY.

(a) Whoever engages in any violent or assaultive conduct
against a pregnant woman resulting in the conviction of the
person so engaging for a violation of any of the provisions
of law set forth in subsection (c), and thereby causes an
interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy resulting
in prenatal injury (including termination of the pregnancy),
shall, in addition to any penalty imposed for the violation,
be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--
(1) if the relevant provision of law set forth in
subsection (c) is set forth in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of
that subsection, a fine under title 18, United States Code,
or imprisonment not more than 20 years, or both, but if the
interruption terminates the pregnancy, a fine under title 18,
United States Code, or imprisonment for any term of years or
for life, or both; and
(2) if the relevant provision of law is set forth in
subsection (c)(4), the punishment shall be the such
punishment (other than the death penalty) as the court
martial may direct.
(c) The provisions of law referred to in subsection (a) are
the following:
(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242,
245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i),
924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121,
1153(a), 1201(a), 1203(a), 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512,
1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and
(a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119,
2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332,
2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of title 18, United States
Code.
(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970
(21 U.S.C. 848).
(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2283).
(4) Sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926,
and 928 of title 10, United States

[[Page H9065]]

Code (articles 118, 119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a), 122, 124, 126,
and 128).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 313, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady)
each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2436 creates a separate Federal
criminal offense for harm to, quote, an unborn child, with the legal
status separate from that of the woman. The Lofgren-Conyers substitute
creates a separate Federal criminal offense for harm to a pregnant
woman.
The underlying bill recognizes, quote, a member of the species Homo
sapiens at all stages of development as a victim of crime, from
conception to birth. This affords even an embryo legal rights equal to
and separate from those of the woman.
The Lofgren-Conyers substitute recognizes the pregnant woman as the
primary victim of a crime. The substitute creates an offense that
protects women and punishes violence resulting in injury or termination
of a pregnancy. It provides for a maximum 20-year sentence for injury
to a woman's pregnancy and up to a life sentence for termination of a
woman's pregnancy.
It requires a conviction for the underlying criminal offense and
focuses on the harm to the pregnant woman, providing a deterrent
against violence against women.
This amendment is simple. Offered by the ranking member and myself,
it recognizes that there are existing crimes in Federal law that
protect women from violence such as violent assault. This amendment
recognizes that when such crimes not only hurt the woman but also cause
her to miscarry, there is additional harm to that woman. This amendment
enhances the sentence one can receive for causing this additional harm
to up to a life sentence.
Why is it important for us to pass this amendment for this crime and
to impose this penalty? What can compare to giving birth to a child
long awaited and then raising that child through all the challenges
humankind face?
Those of us who are mothers know that it is the most important thing
in our lives, and those of us who have suffered a miscarriage know the
incredible trauma and the overwhelming sense of loss that is involved.
An assailant who hurts a woman in this way deserves to be severely
punished, but the bill before us, let us be clear, was not really about
that. It was simply another attempt to cut away at the rights of women
to determine their own reproductive choices.
The men who have promoted the underlying bill are, I believe, sincere
in their zealotry on behalf of their cause, namely that the government
makes the choice of whether or not a woman gives birth, not the woman.
Now I do not agree with that position, but I do recognize that that
is what their bill is about. That is why anti-choice activists are
calling Members of the House to urge a yes vote on the underlying bill
and a no vote on this substitute. That is why, although dressed up as a
crime bill, the underlying bill was never reviewed by the Subcommittee
on Crime. No, it was a product of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
The underlying bill advances the political cause while overlooking
what really matters to the mothers of America. Indeed, if someone
violently assaults a pregnant woman and that woman miscarries and loses
the child she so much desires, that is indeed a great offense. That is
why I offer this substitute to the bill of the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Canady).
Assaults that cause a woman to miscarry, that cause the suffering
that other women and I personally have felt, that destroy the hope that
that pregnant woman has, are offenses of such dire consequence that
they must be considered extraordinary. A wanted and hoped-for child
lost to miscarriage, whether through violence or fate, is an injury to
the woman who would be a mother that is monumental and everlasting.
If the goal in criminal law is ever properly vengeance, then this
loss calls out for vengeance. If the goal is justice, then contrast the
proposed penalty for this grievous injury to a woman with other
offenses deemed worthy of up to a maximum sentence of life. The accused
may be sentenced up to life for exploiting children, for drug
trafficking, for aggravated sexual assault of an under age child and
for many other crimes.
I offer this substitute that would recognize the crime and impose
this penalty for anyone who would assault a pregnant woman if that
assault interrupts her pregnancy or causes her to miscarry. Assault is
already a crime but the loss to someone who is carrying and expecting a
child is a significant difference and should be acknowledged at law.
The substitute focuses on what is real for American women. Oppose
violence against women. Do not use that violence as an excuse to
eliminate personal choice about reproduction for American women. Women
in America need protection against violence. They may also need
protection against those in the majority of this Congress who want to
tell them what to do with their lives and who think it is acceptable to
use the tragedy of miscarriage to advance the political goal of
repealing reproductive rights.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), who is the sponsor of this
legislation.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Canady) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I just ask the Members who have been following the
debate, just keep their eye on the ball.
Before I became a Member of Congress, like many of my colleagues, I
lived my life in the law. I was a prosecutor. I was a defense attorney.
I practiced law in the military. I was a member of the Judge Advocate
General Corps for 6\1/2\ years and served as a prosecutor and a defense
attorney in that capacity. I enjoyed my profession. I enjoyed the law.
I particularly enjoyed the criminal law because I think it has a
simplicity and a common sense to it that really is unique in the world
in the sense of the way we have designed it here in America.
I have never been around a debate that distorted so many simple and
long-held legal concepts as this debate.
I urge Members to vote against this substitute because it destroys
the bill. It is fatally defective. When I designed this bill, it came
about as a result of some information being passed to me from military
colleagues who talked about the Robbins case and without the Ohio
statute the person would have gotten away with the crime of murder, of
destroying that 8-month-old baby. So there is a need out there at the
Federal level to do something about problems like this.
What I did is I looked at State law and I found a definition of
unborn that we adopted from a State whose statute has been
constitutionally challenged and upheld. I just did not make it up. I
thought like a lawyer. I went to what was true and tested, and the
language in this bill has been true and tested in court. It withstands
legal scrutiny.
These are not words we make up for political reasons. These are words
we use to make sure people go to jail who deserve to stay in jail. The
substitute is sentence enhancement and it uses the term, termination,
interruption of pregnancy but it has no definition of what that means.
If one is concerned about zygotes being subject to the criminal law,
then they have a real concern about the substitute. My bill defines
``unborn'' as when it attaches to the womb. Zygotes are not covered,
but there is no definitional section in the substitute and it would not
withstand scrutiny.
The loss, who is the loss here? Is it just merely the loss to the
woman when an unborn child is killed by a third party or injured by a
third party criminal? No. It is not just a loss to the woman. It is a
loss to society.
In 1994, the Democratic Congress passed legislation that prevented a
pregnant woman from being sentenced to death while she is pregnant. If
it is just a loss to the woman, they would go ahead and execute her,
but my colleagues understood in 1994 they are not

[[Page H9066]]

going to execute a pregnant woman because they do not want to kill an
unborn child because of the crimes of the mother.
This statute focuses on criminal behavior like 24 other States. This
statute will allow a separate prosecution for people who attack
pregnant women, and injure or kill their unborn child, in a
constitutional manner.
The substitute claims to bring an additional charge to bear. Mr.
Chairman, that cannot be done. Sentence enhancement is one theory. That
means the sentence is elevated against the charge that would be levied
against the assault against the mother.
In the Arkansas case, where 3 people were hired to beat the woman up
with the express purpose of killing the baby, if sentence enhancement
was the law in Arkansas all that could be done was enhance the charge
that would be brought against attacking the mother and the murder of
the child would go unpunished.
There is a huge legal difference between the charge of murder and
sentence enhancement for a simple assault or an aggravated assault.
This substitute destroys the legal effect of the bill. It would not
withstand scrutiny. They have just literally thrown this thing
together. There is no definition or guidance in it. It is internally
inconsistent.
I would challenge anybody to be able to bring two separate accounts:
One, a crime against the mother, Mrs. Jones; two a separate charge for
terminating her pregnancy. One cannot find somebody guilty of that
charge. One has to have a victim. Her sentence could be enchanced but
that allows people to get away with what I believe to be murder, like
in Arkansas.
Please reject this substitute and understand we spent a lot of time
and effort looking at tested law and this is something I hope Members
of this body can agree on. Third party criminals who attack women and
destroy or injure children ought to go to jail for what they have done.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.

{time} 1545

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California
for her leadership in this very sensitive discussion.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the previous speaker, a good friend of
mine on the Committee on the Judiciary, that we all want to punish
people who attack women who are pregnant. That is not the question.
There is no one in the House that does not want to add punishment.
The only difference is that our substitute applies to acts which
cause the interruption in the normal course of the pregnancy, thereby
avoiding the entire controversy concerning independent fetal rights.
Now, that is really what the substitute and the whole bill is about.
I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the
committee, for making it clear that that is what it is about. I mean,
he makes it clear. That is what he talks about. He gave his usual
speech about abortion, against it, and what the people mean and think
and how bad choice is. The gentleman from Illinois has made it clear.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), the leader and manager of
this bill, my good friend, has done everything in his power to conceal
the fact that that is what we are doing. We are making incursions on
Roe versus Wade.
The New York Times has figured it out in a very good way. The bill
sponsors assert the measure has nothing to do with the abortion issue.
Can my colleagues imagine that? That is all we have talked about is the
abortion issue. But that view is disingenuous.
By creating a separate legal status for fetuses, the bill supporters
are plainly hoping to build a foundation for a fresh legal assault on
the constitutional underpinning of Roe. We all know that. That is why
we offer a substitute for those who want to punish people who attack
women who are pregnant.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I am not an attorney, and I am not a constitutional
scholar. I do not know of the implications that have been referred to
up to this point in time with regard to this bill's impact on Roe
versus Wade, and I do not care. It is not the reason why I support the
bill.
It has been mentioned by the previous speaker that everybody in the
body wanted to protect the rights of women when they were carrying a
child. It is certainly true that that is a desire on my part. But I
certainly go beyond that. I not only wish to protect her rights, I wish
to protect the rights of the child she is carrying.
Justice is what we seek, of course. Who is worthy of receiving
justice when a violent crime is carried out against the will of people?
This legislation, the underlying legislation, not the substitute, will
bring unborn children under the protection of Federal law and finally
acknowledge the separate crime that takes place when an unborn child is
either harmed or killed during a criminal act.
It actually amazes me that current Federal law treats an assault on a
pregnant woman in which the unborn child is killed the same way as if
it were an assault on a woman who was not pregnant. There is a
difference. Amazing it is for some people to believe and understand,
there is a difference. It is far time that the Congress of the United
States recognize that fact.
This is a life that has been cut short by a criminal event and by a
criminal act before that life can even begin. We cannot not stand by
when an unlawful killing of a fetus takes place and do nothing. We must
follow suit, as 11 States has already done, in criminalizing such
activities to include any stage of prenatal development.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I rise strongly in support of her substitute.
Mr. Chairman, violence against women and, even more horribly,
violence against pregnant women deserves the attention of both Federal
and State law enforcement authorities. Perpetrators should be dealt
with swiftly and harshly. But I do not really believe, unless my
colleagues support this amendment, that that is the issue before the
House of Representatives today.
There are a number of highly respected organizations nationally in my
own State, and locally in some of my communities, who are concerned
with violence against women and violence against women who are
pregnant, violence against women and their children, violence within
the families, yet, they are notably absent in their support or even
having been consulted by the authors of this legislation.
There are other groups in this country who are principally concerned,
obsessively concerned with overturning the decision Roe versus Wade, a
woman's right to choice. They are prominently involved in the drafting
of the underlying legislation and in the endorsement of that and in the
opposition to this amendment.
This amendment, if my colleagues are concerned about violence against
women, violence against pregnant women, violence against pregnant women
that harms the fetus, then there is no reason to oppose this amendment.
It would say we are going to have harsh Federal penalties for the few
cases that are brought in Federal court. Remember, few of these are
brought in Federal court. But if they are, if they rise to that level,
harsh penalties just for the violence against women. If it causes any
harm to the fetus, 20 years in Federal prison. No parole. If it causes
the death of the fetus, it could lead to a life sentence without parole
in Federal prison.
Now, those are pretty darn harsh penalties. How can you oppose that?
Unless the reason my colleagues are really here is a back-door attempt
to repeal Roe versus Wade.
Let us just be honest about it. Bring a constitutional amendment to
the floor to repeal Roe versus Wade. The

[[Page H9067]]

only problem with them doing that that honestly is that they know a
majority of the American people do not support that.
So, instead, under the guise of something that it is very difficult
for anybody to oppose on the floor of the House, they are bringing
forward this high-sounding argument that, well, there are these
technical legal concerns about whether or not these people who could
cause the death of a fetus will be adequately punished. Under this
amendment, they will be dealt with harshly. Support the Lofgren
amendment.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act and opposed to the amendment.
We have heard some very interesting statements out here on the floor
today. One of the opponents of this act said we ought to vote against
this act because, and let me quote, ``because the criminal attack on a
woman causing her to lose a child, and an abortion, it is too easy to
confuse the two.''
In other words, a criminal attack on a woman which causes her to lose
her unborn child, she said the only difference in that and an abortion
is, she says, the result is the same except for the criminal intent,
and we cannot always determine the difference.
Now, do my colleagues buy that? Do my colleagues buy that this
Congress or the American people cannot distinguish between a criminal
attack on a woman which causes her to lose her unborn child and an
abortion? I do not think so. I think that is ludicrous.
Another reason we were told to vote against this act, we were told
that the Federal court or the Federal jurisdiction may have
jurisdiction over the mother, but they might not have jurisdiction over
the unborn child.
In other words, an FBI agent who is pregnant, we can try someone for
assaulting her or murdering her, but not her unborn child, because that
would not be a Federal act.
Well, what do we do in those cases? Do we always try those? Would we
try them, as that person who opposes it said, we ought to try that case
in the State court? Of course not. That is ludicrous.
The final thing, which is probably the worst, is this statement, and
I say this with respect to all Members: that this is the first occasion
that this Congress or this Supreme Court has ever recognized the legal
status of an unborn child. If we pass this act, we will be recognizing
the legal status of an unborn child.
Well I ask you, is it an illegal status? Are unborn children illegal?
How about an unborn child whose mother has made a decision to keep
that child? She wants to keep that child. She wants to have that child.
She wants to raise that child. Is there anything wrong with recognizing
the legal status of that child? Should that child have no status, no
rights? Of course not.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has 19\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) has 20\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I object to this whole process, first of
all on the basis of the public process by which we arrive at it. This
is a parliament. This is no longer a Congress. It is a parliament where
one party rams things through without having hearings on the
implications of what they are passing. If they have got the votes, they
get it.
The only thing missing from this being a parliament is that we do not
have a vote of confidence or they would be gone. Because they cannot
bring a budget out here and pass it and get out of here, so they bring
out these wedge issues.
Now, I am a physician, and it is very clear to me from reading this
that they did not think about what the implications of this are. What
about a spontaneous abortion? All the time, women get pregnant; and
then for reasons we do not understand, their body rejects this child.
Oh, now, if somebody has pushed them on that day when that happens,
this puts them in jail for the rest of their life. How is one going to
prove that it was caused by the action?
The second issue is the whole question of intent. For my colleagues
to just brush over this business of intent, acts of violence against
women are not very well thought through in about 99.9 percent of the
cases. They occur when people are angry. They occur when people are
drunk. They occur in all kinds of circumstances. For my colleagues not
to deal with that issue simply means they want to establish a basis to
overturn Roe v. Wade.
Now, I worked in New York before we had Roe v. Wade in the Buffalo
General Hospital, and I stood by the bedside of people who died getting
illegal abortions.
What my colleagues want is a wedge to go back in the Federal court.
They will not leave the State legislatures to decide this issue. They
want to put it up in the Federal courts where the Senate, the other
body, does not even provide enough judges so they can deal with these
cases. My colleagues want to make it up here because they want to be
able to go to the Supreme Court for an overturning of Roe v. Wade.
My view is that it is nothing, as the New York Times says, but a
direct assault on Roe v. Wade. My colleagues can clothe it and act like
anybody who is against it is against any protection for women who have
had violence committed against them. That is totally untrue. If my
colleagues are serious, put the money for the Violence Against Women
Act in and pass it.

{time} 1600

Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume to respond to a couple of the points the gentleman made on
the issue that he raised about how we would prove these things, and how
we would prove that the harm occurs because of the misconduct of the
defendant.
Well, there is a very simple answer to that. The burden of proof is
on the government, and the government must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the misconduct, in fact, caused the injury and caused the
harm. That is the answer to that question. In the kind of case the
gentleman is raising, they could not prove it. If there is a
spontaneous abortion that occurred, they would be unable to establish
that the defendant was responsible for that taking place. The answer to
the gentleman's question is obvious.
Now, the gentleman asserts the same argument we have heard over and
over again, that this is somehow a basis for overturning Roe v. Wade.
But the gentleman seems to be unaware that laws similar to this have
been enacted in a number of States, more than 20 States. The courts
have upheld those laws time after time. And the courts have
specifically said that the challenge to those laws was not well-founded
and that the principles in Roe are not relevant to cases that deal with
conduct of a third-party assailant on a pregnant woman.
Now, I do not know what could be clearer in the law. I think there is
a fantasy here that somehow the whole structure of abortion rights is
going to come crumbling down because of this bill. That is just not so.
That is not the case. If that were going to happen, it would already be
trembling and shaking because of the laws that have been enacted in the
States and upheld, but I do not think that is the case.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hostettler).
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution for yielding me this time, and I rise
in support of H.R. 2436, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, that
preserves the rights of all women, both born and unborn.
In the famous book Animal Farm, the elitist pigs state, ``All animals
are equal, some are just more equal than others.'' Unfortunately, this
doctrine has been applied in our laws for too long, especially in
regards to the unborn and their legal status before the law.
H.R. 2436, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, gives unborn victims
of violent Federal crimes equal legal status

[[Page H9068]]

and protection just like any other victim. The bill says a person, no
matter the stage of development, should receive equal protection of the
law. It is that simple: Equal protection under the law. This echoes the
principles that lay at the very foundation of our constitutional
government: That is that all of us are equal.
Those opposed to this bill say, ``No, not in this case. We cannot
provide equal protection to an unborn person in the womb, because they
may not be a person.'' Well, we have already heard the tragic story of
Jasmine Robbins. The law can punish the criminal for beating of the
woman but not for the death of the unborn child in her womb. This is
not fair. This is not right.
Some have concluded that since the Supreme Court has determined that,
``fetuses are not persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment,''
that the case is closed. However, we are a government of laws, not the
arbitrary decisions of men.
Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court made that fateful statement.
Then, 10 years ago, the Supreme Court refused to invalidate a Missouri
statute that declares, ``The life of each human being begins at
conception.'' Furthermore, we are a government where even the smallest
in our society is allowed to rise and say the majority is wrong. The
smallest in this case are the pre-born children in their mother's womb.
Let us not turn our backs on these principles. Let us do our jobs by
stating that the laws apply to all people, all women, born and unborn.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, as a mother of five children, I
know the joys associated with motherhood. Also, as an advocate for
women's issues, I am well aware of the dangers that women face as it
relates to domestic violence. Acts of violence against women,
especially pregnant women, are tragic and should be punished
appropriately. However, H.R. 2436 is not the best way to achieve this
goal.
H.R. 2436 is not designed to persecute these crimes and prevent
violence against women but to undermine a woman's right to choose by
criminalizing death or injury that occurs at any stage of development
from conception to birth. H.R. 2436 does not recognize the harm to the
woman. In fact, it does not even mention the woman.
We should not be fooled by rhetoric of the supporters of H.R. 2436.
This bill fails to address the very real need for strong Federal
legislation to prevent and punish violent crimes against women. Nearly
one in every three adult women experiences at least one physical
assault by a partner during adulthood. To deter crimes against women,
and to punish those who assault or murder pregnant women, Congress
should pursue other avenues that focus on the harm to the woman and the
promotion of healthy pregnancies.
Elevating the status of a fetus to a person flies in the face of the
Roe v. Wade decision on the definition of a person and also erodes a
woman's right to choose. This is the beginning of a very slippery
slope, and I am not about to slide on that slope.
The Lofgren substitute creates a separate Federal criminal offense
for harm to a pregnant woman. We are against the bill because it does
nothing, that is H.R. 2436, to protect the pregnant mother. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2436, this Unborn Victims of Violence
Act, and support the Lofgren-Conyers substitute, the Motherhood
Protection Act, because H.R. 2436 is a direct assault on Roe v. Wade. I
ask for a ``yes'' vote for the Lofgren-Conyers substitute.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair
concerning the amount of time remaining on each side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) has 16 minutes
remaining, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has 14
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) has the
right to close.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me
this time, I commend the gentleman from South Carolina for his
authorship of this very important legislation, and I rise in support of
the gentleman's legislation and in opposition to the substitute.
I am proud to cosponsor the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which
promotes justice by holding violent criminals accountable for their
conduct. It is unthinkable that under current Federal law an individual
who commits a Federal crime of violence against a pregnant woman
receives no additional punishment for killing or injuring the woman's
unborn child during the commission of the crime. Where is the justice
when a criminal can inflict harm upon a woman, even with the express
purpose of harming her unborn child, and not be held accountable for
those actions?
Approximately half of the States, including my home State of
Virginia, have seen the wisdom in holding criminals accountable for
their actions by making violent criminals liable for conduct that harms
or kills an unborn baby. Unfortunately, our Federal statutes provide a
gap in the law that usually allows the criminal to walk away with
little more than a slap on the wrist. Criminals are held more liable
for damage done to property than for the intentional harm done to an
unborn child. This discrepancy in the law is appalling and must be
corrected.
Regardless of whether we are pro-choice or pro-life, those of us who
are parents can identify with the hope that accompanies the impending
birth of a child. No law passed by Congress could ever heal the
devastation created by the loss of a child or replace a child lost to
violence. However, we can ensure that justice is done by making the
criminals who take the life of an unborn child pay for their actions.
When a mother is bringing a life into this world and that life is cut
short by a violent criminal, that criminal should be held accountable
under the law. Justice demands it and so should we.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act, and I commend my colleagues for their efforts in this
matter.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time and also for sponsoring this amendment, and I rise in support
of the Lofgren amendment.
What it would do is establish a Federal crime for any violent conduct
against a pregnant woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy.
That makes sense. In its current form, the Unborn Victims of Violence
Act obscures women's rights while claiming to champion them. We are
forced to ignore that in order to harm a ``Homo sapien in any stage of
development,'' as it reads, there is a woman who has been victimized by
violence. This legislation switches our attention to the crime on a
pregnancy at any stage while ignoring the woman who is pregnant.
The Lofgren substitute would create a Federal criminal offense for
harm to a pregnant woman, recognizing that the pregnant woman is the
primary victim of a crime causing termination of a pregnancy. The
substitute provides for a maximum of a 20-year sentence for injury to a
woman's pregnancy and a maximum life sentence for termination of a
woman's pregnancy.
For each of the past several years, domestic violence has victimized
an estimated 1 million women over age 12, and the number increases each
year. There are approximately 200 Federal cases of women who were
harmed last year, and we cannot say how many were pregnant at the time.
If supporters of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act truly intend on
increasing the penalties for Federal crimes that harm a pregnancy, they
will focus on increased penalties where they would be best served in
these circumstances: On the devastating loss or injury to the woman
when her pregnancy is compromised.
Many States recognize this and have strengthened laws to punish such
crimes against pregnant women, and I urge my colleagues to do the same
by voting against the bill and by supporting strongly the Lofgren
substitute.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would submit to the Members of the House who are
considering this substitute amendment that

[[Page H9069]]

the substitute amendment is so poorly drafted and ambiguous that it
will place any prosecution for violence against the unborn in great
jeopardy. The substitute amendment also diminishes the injuries
inflicted by violent criminals on the unborn, transforming those
injuries into mere abstractions.
Let me also note that it is somewhat ironic that the substitute
amendment is subject to some of the very same criticisms that have been
made so vociferously against the bill.
We have heard that the underlying bill is fundamentally flawed and
unconstitutional because it does not have a requirement that there be a
specific intent to kill or injure the unborn child. The opponents of
the bill claim that the doctrine of transferred intent is not
sufficient and that it must be the specific intent to kill or injure
the unborn child.
As I read this amendment in the nature of a substitute, I do not see
any specific intent requirement. I do not see that there must be a
specific intent to cause the interruption or termination of the
pregnancy. I would be happy to yield to anyone who can point to the
provision in here that has such a specific intent provision. I do not
think it is there. As a matter of fact, I know it is not there. I have
read it, and it is absent.
So it is quite ironic that after hearing that sort of criticism of
the underlying bill, the opponents of the bill come forward with a
substitute amendment that is subject to the same criticism.
And that is not the only thing. They have complained that the
underlying bill provides protection for the unborn in the early stages
of pregnancy. They say that that goes too far, to provide that
protection in the early stages of pregnancy. Well, once again I believe
that this amendment, this substitute, is subject to the very same
criticism. So I am puzzled by the arguments that are made against the
underlying bill.

{time} 1615

Ordinarily, when an argument is made against an underlying bill by
the proponents of a substitute, their substitute will not be subject to
the same criticism. I just find it is very strange that the proponents
of the substitute have crafted this, if that is the right word, to have
it subject to the same criticisms.
I would suggest that any Member contemplating voting for this
amendment should take pause and consider the flaws that are in the
amendment that I am going to discuss.
First, the terminology in the substitute amendment is virtually
incomprehensible and, if adopted, it will almost certainly jeopardize
any prosecution from injuring or killing an unborn child during the
commission of a violent crime.
The substitute amendment provides for enhanced penalty for the
``interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy resulting in
prenatal injury, including termination of the pregnancy.'' The
amendment then authorizes greater punishment for an interruption that
terminates the pregnancy than it does for a mere interruption of the
pregnancy.
But what exactly is the difference between an interruption of a
pregnancy and an interruption that terminates a pregnancy? I would like
some explanation of that. Does not any interruption of a pregnancy
necessarily result in a termination of a pregnancy? The plain meaning
of ``interruption'' requires that interpretation. If ``interruption''
does not mean that, what does it mean?
I have looked at this. I have tried to make sense of it. But I will
suggest to the Members of the House that is a task that is
extraordinarily difficult.
What does the phrase ``termination of pregnancy'' mean? Does it mean
only that the unborn child died, or could it also mean that the child
was merely born prematurely, even without suffering any injuries?
Interpreting the term according to its plain meaning requires that we
understand that a pregnancy may be terminated in different ways and
with different results.
I would suggest to the Members of the House that these ambiguities
make this substitute amendment impossible to comprehend in any coherent
way with any certainty.
Now, second, subsection 2(a) of the substitute amendment appears to
operate as a mere sentence enhancement authorizing punishment in
addition to any penalty imposed for the predicate offense. Yet the
language of subsection 2(b) describes the additional punishment
provided in subsection 2(a) as punishment for a violation of subsection
A, suggesting that subsection 2(a) creates a separate offense for
killing or injuring an unborn child.
This ambiguity is magnified by the fact that subsection 2(a) requires
that the conduct injuring or killing of an unborn child result in the
conviction of the person so engaging. Now, does this mean that a
conviction must first be obtained before a defendant may be charged
with a violation of subsection 2(a), or does it mean that the
additional punishment may be imposed at the trial for a predicate
offense so long as it is imposed after the jury convicts the predicate
offense?
Is a separate charge necessary for the enhanced penalty to be
imposed? The substitute amendment simply does not answer these critical
questions. Prosecuting violent criminals under it will, therefore, be
virtually impossible.
Unlike the current language of the bill, the Lofgren-Conyers
substitute also contains no exemptions for abortion-related conduct,
for conduct of the mother, or for medical treatment of the pregnant
woman or her unborn child. This omission leaves a substitute amendment
open to the charge that it would permit the prosecution of mothers who
inflict harm upon themselves and their unborn children or doctors who
kill or injure unborn children during the provision of medical
treatment.
For that reason, the substitute amendment would certainly be
subjected to a constitutional challenge. I would guarantee my
colleagues if the underlying bill had not had such an exemption in it,
we would have heard no end of that flaw in the underlying bill. But
that provision is omitted from the substitute. Perhaps the supporters
of the substitute see that not as a flaw in the amendment but as a
desirable feature.
I am quite frankly puzzled by the omission of such a provision from
the substitute, and I would leave it to the supporters of the
substitute to explain the reason for the omission.
The substitute amendment also appears to mischaracterize the nature
of the injury that is inflicted when an unborn child is killed or
injured during the commission of a violent crime. Under the current
language of the bill, a separate offense is committed whenever an
individual causes the death of or bodily injury to a child who is in
utero at the time the conduct takes place.
Although the actual language of the substitute amendment is
hopelessly unclear, it appears that the supporters of the substitute
intend to transform the death of the unborn child into the abstraction
``terminating a pregnancy.'' Bodily injury inflicted upon the unborn
child appears to become prenatal injury. Both injuries are apparently
intended to be described as resulting from an ``interruption in the
normal course of the pregnancy.''
Again, I submit to the Members of this House that these abstractions
ignore the reality of what is truly at issue when a criminal violently
snuffs out the life of an unborn child or injures a child in the womb.
These abstractions that are embodied in the substitute amendment
obscure the real nature of the harm that is done and the loss that is
suffered when an unborn child is killed or injured.
Consider this: if an assault is committed upon a Member of Congress
and her unborn child subsequently suffers from a disability because of
the assault, that injury cannot accurately be described as an abstract
injury to a pregnancy. That is not an injury to the pregnancy. That is
an injury to an unborn child. There is no other way to understand it
and make sense of the reality of what is taking place. It is an injury
to a human being.
The Graham bill recognizes that reality. The Lofgren-Conyers
substitute simply chooses to ignore it and attempts to hide it. The
Lofgren-Conyers substitute is radically flawed and should be rejected
for the reasons I have explained. The substitute is so poorly drafted
and ambiguous that obtaining a conviction of a violent criminal under
it will almost be impossible. It attempts to deal with the crimes in

[[Page H9070]]

question in a way that is divorced from the reality of the harm and
loss that is actually suffered. It deals with these crimes in a way
that is simply not consistent with the real human experience of the
mothers and fathers of those unborn children who are the victims.
It is for all these reasons I urge my colleagues to reject the
Lofgren-Conyers substitute and to support the Graham bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to discuss our substitute amendment and I
appreciate the questions of the gentleman. In some cases he has misread
the amendment, and in other cases he is exactly right.
Let me first deal with the issue of exempting abortion from our bill.
We do not need to exempt abortion from the substitute. Because in order
to fall within the penumbra number of the amendment, one must have been
convicted of one of the enumerated crimes that are listed within the
bill. And abortion, thank goodness, is not a crime in America, although
some in this body would wish it were so. So there is no need to do
that.
Secondarily, really the amendment and the discussion is about choice.
Let me discuss it in this way: if she is a pregnant woman and she wants
desperately to have a child and she is assaulted and, as a consequence,
she miscarries, she has been denied her choice to have a child. And
that is an injury and it is a separate offense in the substitute
amendment. The gentleman is correct. It is a separate and severable
offense that is punishable by up to life imprisonment, as it should be.
There is another potential harm that could be done to a woman who is
hoping to have a child, and that is assault that would result in a
prenatal injury to that wanted child. I do thank the parliamentarian
for his assistance yesterday in helping to craft the language on lines
10 and 11 of page 1 of the substitute.
The interruption of a normal pregnancy through the imposition of a
prenatal injury because of an assault or one of the other crimes listed
on page 2 of the amendment is also a punishable offense, as it should
be.
So, yes, we do not need a separate intent provision in the
substitute. The gentleman is correct in that regard. But we do need a
conviction for the predicate offense, which in almost every case would
also require a finding of intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, I have just a little bit of time left under the rule, and I do
know that my colleague and cosponsor of the amendment, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, did also want to make
a few comments on this entire issue.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time
for the purpose of closing.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has 8
minutes remaining.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the time.
I would begin the close of our comments by observing that my friend,
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), at least recently, has not
denied as I have listened to the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hyde) in particular, the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, that the problem that we have with the bill is not whether
we can understand the language or whether it is incomprehensible or
not, but whether or not it is a back-door attack on Roe.
I mean, that is the question. Is the major bill that has caused us to
create a substitute a back-door attack on Roe v. Wade?
We think that it is, for the following reasons: until recently, the
law did not recognize the existence of the fetus except for a very few
specific purposes. As stated by the Supreme Court in Roe: ``The unborn
have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.''
That is a quote. And the law that has been reluctant to afford any
legal rights to fetuses quote ``except in narrowly defined situations
and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth.''
So Roe specifically rejected the suggestion that a theory of life
that grants personhood to the fetus and that the law may override the
rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake.
So what I am suggesting is that the issue is not really the language
of the substitute, but it is really the deeper problem of whether an
unborn child should be entitled to legal status that is unprecedented
in the Federal system. I hope to gain the attention of the learned
attorney from South Carolina, and that is that in the 26 years
following Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has never recognized an unborn
child as having legal status.
In State courts and State law, yes, and many times it has not been
challenged. But on the two occasions that this came before the United
States Supreme Court, they have never recognized an unborn child as
having legal status. The two cases that I would suggest are the Burns
case in 1975 and the Webster v. Reproductive Health Services in 1989.
These are the only two cases since Roe in which the Supreme Court has
been asked to recognize the unborn child as having legal status, and in
both cases the Supreme Court refused to do so.

{time} 1630

Now, what does the substitute do? The substitute accomplishes the
same thing that the major bill does without reaching a conclusion
contrary to Roe v. Wade that has never recognized the unborn child as
having legal status. That is precisely the difference. Punishment, the
same. Objective, the same. Abhorrence of pregnant women having their
pregnancy terminated involuntarily, the same. But the difference in the
substitute is that our substitute keeps Roe v. Wade intact in that it
maintains that the recognition of an unborn child as being entitled to
legal status has never yet occurred in the law, and the Congress this
evening is about to attempt to change that.
That is why we say, gentlemen of the Republican persuasion, this is a
backdoor attack on Roe v. Wade. And what we are trying to do is
accomplish the same objective as the major bill without interrupting
the status of Roe v. Wade.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, we have spent this afternoon
talking about H.R. 2436, the pros and the cons. I have listened to my
colleagues support H.R. 2436. If they can support H.R. 2436, they can
support the Lofgren substitute, because it protects pregnant women. If
they can support H.R. 2436, they can support the Lofgren substitute
because it recognizes pregnant women as the primary victim of a crime
causing the termination of a pregnancy without impacting Roe v. Wade or
a woman's right to choose. If they can support H.R. 2436, they can
support the substitute, because it creates a defense that protects
women and punishes violence resulting in injury or termination of a
pregnancy. If they can support H.R. 2436, they can support the Lofgren
substitute because it provides for a significant penalty for a
violation wherein a pregnant woman is harmed.
Fifthly, if they can support H.R. 2436, they can support the Lofgren
substitute because it requires a conviction for the underlying criminal
offense.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In conclusion of this debate, I am hopeful that this Lofgren-Conyers
substitute is in fact adopted by this body.
Now, there are some who argue that up to a life sentence is too harsh
for the perpetrator of violence on a woman who would then miscarry, but
I know that that is not the case.
When one miscarries and loses a wanted opportunity to become a
mother, that is something you remember your whole life. That is
something that is a grievous harm and a terrible blow. It seems to me
that someone who would perpetrate that violence and that harm on a
woman ought to face that kind of harsh penalty. So I urge those who
have qualms about the severity of the penalty included in the
substitute, to look at it from the woman's point of view and to
understand

[[Page H9071]]

that while we believe that a woman's right to reproductive freedom
includes her right not to have a child, choice also means the right to
have a child, and if you are pregnant and you want that child, those
who would assault you and who would either engage in a prenatal injury
or cause you to miscarry have interfered with your choice, your right
to become a parent and to enjoy all the things that those of us who are
mothers do enjoy, which is to watch our children grow and to help them
become ever more responsible citizens.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the substitute and a ``no'' vote on the
Canady bill.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) who is the sponsor of
the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) is
recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, very quickly, I will hit this head-on the
best that I know how. That if you are saying here today that Roe v.
Wade is a ``get out of jail free'' card for criminals who assault
pregnant women and destroy their unborn children, you are not reading
the same ruling that I am reading. Roe v. Wade never said that third-
party criminals have open season on unborn children. Roe v. Wade said
that women can terminate their own pregnancy in certain conditions in
the first trimester. The Supreme Court has not said you cannot pass a
statute holding criminals liable for attacking pregnant women.
For 29 years, California, the gentlewoman's home State, has had a
statute that makes it a crime for a third-party criminal to kill a
nonviable, in medical terms, fetus and there are people sitting in
California in jail right now, and all over this country in States that
have these statutes, and they are not going to get out of jail because
of Roe v. Wade. They are serving their time because the statute that
sent them to jail is constitutional. That is why they are in jail and
they are not going to get out.
Mr. Chairman, we have the authority if we so choose to make it a
Federal offense to attack a pregnant woman and destroy her unborn child
and to charge her separately. This is an opportunity to do what a lot
of Americans wish we would do, regardless of how you feel about
abortion.
The substitute, Mr. Chairman, that destroys the purpose of this bill
is inartfully written and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)
said, ``We are not really worried about the words, we are worried about
Roe v. Wade.'' I am worried about the words because when I prosecuted
people in the past as a prosecutor, the words mattered. It has to be
written right. The words in the substitute will allow criminals to get
away with killing unborn children, what most Americans, I believe,
would not want to happen.
Mr. Chairman, it comes down to this. When a criminal becomes the
judge, the jury and the executioner of an unborn child that was wanted
by the woman, let us act. Let us stand up and give Federal prosecutors
the right to hold them fully accountable for what they have done,
taking a life that was wanted, that was being nurtured. This is a
chance to do something that is necessary in the law and unfortunately
is going to happen somewhere, sometime, some thug is going to attack a
pregnant woman where Federal jurisdiction exists and they are going to
take her baby away and they are going to kill that baby. We have got a
chance to put them in jail if they can prove the case. Let us give them
the tools, a good statute to do what justice demands.
You cannot under Federal law execute a woman who is pregnant. A
Democratic Congress made that illegal. The reason they did that is
because they know that most Americans would not want to execute a
pregnant woman because they would not want the unborn child to die for
the crimes of the mother. Let us make sure that criminals are also
barred from taking that unborn child, and if they do, they go to jail.
I thank my colleagues very much for paying attention to an important
debate. Vote ``no'' to the substitute. Give prosecutors the tool they
need to prosecute criminals who want to take babies away from women who
have chosen to have them. Pass this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 313, further proceedings
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) will be postponed.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 313, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Canady); and amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic
vote.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Canady of Florida

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 269,
noes 158, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 463]

AYES--269

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas

[[Page H9072]]

Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--158

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kuykendall
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Porter
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Slaughter
Stabenow
Stark
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--6

Chenoweth
Hooley
Jefferson
Meeks (NY)
Scarborough
Wu

{time} 1705

Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN and Mrs. MEEK of Florida
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. ROUKEMA changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 463, I inadvertently
pressed the ``aye'' button. I meant to press the ``no'' button.

Amendment No. 2 In The Nature of A Substitute Offered by Ms. Lofgren

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) on which further proceedings
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201,
noes 224, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 464]

AYES--201

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dunn
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holt
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kuykendall
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn

NOES--224

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--8

Chenoweth
Herger
Hooley
Jefferson
Meeks (NY)
Scarborough
Weller
Wu

{time} 1714

Mr. MOAKLEY, Mr. KUCINICH and Mr. SKELTON changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.

{time} 1715

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of the

[[Page H9073]]

Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2346) to
amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military
Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 313, he reported the bill
back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 254,
nays 172, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 465]

YEAS--254

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--172

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kolbe
Kuykendall
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Porter
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--7

Chenoweth
Ford
Hooley
Jefferson
Meeks (NY)
Scarborough
Wu

{time} 1734

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________