[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 17, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10463-H10465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   CARJACKING CORRECTION ACT OF 1996

  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 3676) to amend title 18, United States Code, clarify the intent 
of Congress with respect to the Federal carjacking prohibition, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3676

       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 ``Carjacking Correction Act of 
     1996''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF INTENT OF CONGRESS IN FEDERAL 
                   CARJACKING PROHIBITION.

       Section 2119(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``, including any conduct that, if the conduct 
     occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction 
     of the United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242 of 
     this title'' after (as defined in section 1365 of this 
     title''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Buyer] and the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] 
will each control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].


                             general leave

  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3676, the Carjacking Corrections Act, amends 
section 2119(2) of title 18, United States Code, to clarify that rape 
constitutes a serious bodily injury for the purposes of the penalty 
enhancement provided in the Federal carjacking statute.
  Mr. Speaker, few crimes are as vicious as carjackings. It is a tragic 
reflection of our time that victims of carjackings are actually glad 
that they only lost their car. It is a sad day when people can say they 
are happy to have just been abandoned, often at night, far from home, 
having just had one of their most valuable pieces of property taken 
from them. But these victims know they could have been raped or killed. 
Could we ever forget the story of Pamela Basu, who died in a horrible 
carjacking right here in our Nation's Capital when she was dragged for 
a mile and a half while trying to rescue her 2-year old daughter who 
was still in the backseat of the car? Many Americans witnessed that 
account on our national news. Carjackers are some of society's most 
ruthless criminals--when we talk about carjackers, we are not just 
talking about car theft, we are talking about violent predators.
  Mr. Speaker, the federal carjacking law, section 2119(2) of title 18, 
currently allows for an additional 10 years in prison if serious bodily 
injury results from a carjacking. Serious bodily injury is defined in 
title 18 as ``a substantial risk of death,'' ``extreme physical pain,'' 
``protracted and obvious disfigurement,'' or ``protracted loss or 
impairment of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty.'' Under this 
bill serious bodily injury, for purposes of the penalty enhancement 
under the carjacking statute, will include sexual abuse and aggravated 
sexual abuse, as already defined in title 18.

[[Page H10464]]

  This legislation is responsive to a First Circuit Court of Appeals 
decision, on May 21 of this year, overturning a district court opinion 
in which a carjacking received a penalty enhancement for raping his 
victim. The first circuit panel held that rape was not a serious bodily 
injury. One first circuit judge requested that the first circuit have a 
rehearing en banc to further review this issue, and this request was 
denied. H.R. 3676 clarifies any confusion Federal judges may have about 
whether a carjacker can get a penalty enhancement for rape. The answer 
is an unequivocal yes.
  This legislation does not create any new Federal crime or expand 
Federal jurisdiction in any way. It does not even create a penalty 
enhancement scheme under the carjacking statute--that enhancement 
already exists in the law. All this bill does it make clear that anyone 
who commits rape during the course of a carjacking will get a longer, 
and certainly well-deserved, term in prison.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I also congratulate the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], for introducing it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I rise in support of the bill, the Carjacking Corrections Act 
of 1996.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. John 
Conyers, ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Judiciary. He has 
been phenomenal in his leadership in getting this bill drafted and 
moving it.
  Mr. Speaker, we really should not have to be here. This is an 
absolute outrage that the first circuit did. The Carjacking Correction 
Act responds to their decision. This decision that was recently issued 
by the first circuit said that for purposes of sentencing enhancement, 
rape was not serious bodily injury.
  I wish they would tell the average American woman that. I think that 
they would be absolutely stunned to find out that there could be 
gentlemen sitting on the bench that would think that. And by the way, 
it was only gentlemen who voted that way.
  This bill makes it very clear that the Congress thinks that rape by 
itself does constitute a serious bodily injury. Under the first circuit 
decision, it would be possible that a carjacker who broke someone's arm 
while carjacking would receive a stronger sentence and a longer 
sentence than somebody who raped their victim. Now, I really find it 
incredible that somebody could say that was a logical distinction.
  The repercussions of this decision have become apparent already. 
There was a woman in Boston who was carjacked and driven to New 
Hampshire where she was raped. Then she was returned to Boston. Now we 
find because living in Massachusetts she is in the first circuit, the 
rape will go unpunished because of this group's decision that that 
would not justify sentencing enhancement.
  The person who took her over the border to do that will only get a 
sentencing on the carjacking.
  The first circuit includes the States of Massachusetts, Vermont, 
Maine, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. I think that 
anyone who lives in those areas will be very pleased if the Congress 
could get this corrected as fast as possible. Mr. Speaker, I want to 
say here today that I do not think anyone in this body ever intended 
that. I cannot imagine how they could possibly think we intended that 
when we dealt with the carjacking issue and sentence enhancement.
  There was only one woman sitting on the First Circuit Court of 
Appeals. Her name was Judge Sarah Lynch. she requested that the case 
that we are correcting today be reheard en banc. But the majority voted 
against that rehearing. In her dissent, Judge Lynch wrote very strongly 
that she believed this result was clearly contrary to the intent of the 
statute and to what the Congress had intended. Well, Judge Lynch, you 
are absolutely right. The Committee on the Judiciary, after Congressman 
Conyers got the bill together, voted unanimously to report this bill to 
the floor. I would hope every one of my colleagues will vote yes on 
this bill so we can correct it as soon as possible, especially for the 
people who are living in that area.
  I particularly want to thank committee counsel Melanie Sloan. She has 
worked so diligently on this matter and has really done a yeoman job, 
and everyone else on the committee for bringing it forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Lofgren].
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I also urge adoption of this bill. I would 
also like to concur in the comments made by the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder]. We should not have to enact this amendment 
to the act. I think it is absolutely clear that rape is serious bodily 
harm. I very much respect the independence of the judiciary and the 
three branches of Government, but that a court could actually rule that 
rape does not constitute serious bodily injury is ludicrous.
  I was not a member of the Congress when the original bill was passed. 
But in talking to the authors and those who worked on the bill, it is 
very clear, not only from what their intent was but also just by 
reading the statute itself, that the decision of the first circuit 
turns reality on its head and will lead to a wrong result.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say one more thing. This decision 
is one more piece of evidence of why we need more women on the Federal 
bench. I love men. My father is one, my husband is one, and my son. But 
I think if we had as many women on the bench as there are women in 
society, we would not have had this absolutely outrageous result in the 
first circuit.
  I hope that we pass this bill. I also hope that, as we move forward 
in the coming years, we will see many more qualified women on the 
Federal bench and prevent this kind of ridiculous result.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank the gentlewoman from California. The gentlewoman is 
absolutely right. You show me an American woman who tells you that rape 
is not a serious bodily injury, I want to see that person come forward. 
I think it is shocking that we would have males sitting on the court of 
appeals that would say that.
  Nevertheless, we are correcting it today. I urge everyone to vote a 
strong, strong, strong aye.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do not have to be shot by a bullet to understand pain. A man can be 
compassionate, can have sincerity, can love. I find it offensive that 
anyone can allege that judicial rulings based on one's gender are 
somehow what is wrong. I find it offensive, I have to say that. I 
believe that bad decisions are bad decisions regardless of chromosomes. 
I am going to stand here and say that, if there have been bad decisions 
that come from the court, if they are made from a woman, if they are 
made from a man, you are looking through it through the dimension of 
gender.
  I support this bill because a bad judicial decision was made. Rape is 
serious bodily injury. The court should have taken it into account. As 
for the sidebar comments, I believe that they are out of place.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
Carjacking Correction Act of 1996, which was introduced by Congressman 
John Conyers. This legislation makes it clear that rape is included in 
the definition of serious bodily injury for purposes of the Federal 
carjacking statute. The current carjacking statute contains a provision 
that enhances the sentence for carjacking if serious bodily injury 
occurs during a carjacking. This legislation is necessary because a 
recent Federal circuit court of appeals decision involving carjacking 
held that rape was not a serious bodily injury. This court decision is 
very unfortunate.
  There is no question that a rape is a serious bodily injury and we 
must make it very clear that all Federal courts understand that it 
should be considered in this manner. Current Federal law defines 
serious bodily injury as ``a substantial risk of death, extreme 
physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss

[[Page H10465]]

or impairment of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty''. This 
legislation would clarify the current law by clearly defining sexual 
assault as a serious bodily injury. We must ensure that the Federal 
courts do not commit the mistake again that occurred in a recent court 
case. I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to support 
this important principle.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 3676, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________