[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 130 (Thursday, September 30, 1999)]
[House]
[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

       ``(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) The punishment for that separate offense is the same 
     as the punishment provided for that conduct under this 
     chapter had the injury or death occurred to the unborn 
     child's mother, except that the death penalty shall not be 
     imposed.
       ``(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) Subsection (a) does not permit prosecution--
       ``(1) 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) for conduct relating to 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.''.
       (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. 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.

       (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

       ``(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.

                          ____________________