[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 25, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H6792-H6797]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 INNOCENT CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2000

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 4888) to protect innocent children.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4888

       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 ``Innocent Child Protection 
     Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF INNOCENT CHILDREN.

       It shall be unlawful for any authority, military or civil, 
     of the United States, a State, or any district, possession, 
     commonwealth or other territory under the authority of the 
     United States to carry out a sentence of death on a woman 
     while she carries a child in utero. In this section, the term 
     ``child in utero'' means a member of the species homo 
     sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the 
     womb.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).


                             General Leave

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material therein on H.R. 4888, the 
bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arkansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 4888 is the Innocent Child Protection Act of 
2000, which would make it unlawful for the Federal Government or any 
State government to execute a woman while she is pregnant. This 
legislation was introduced by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen) on July 19 and would fulfill the obligations of the United 
States under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
  That covenant, which was ratified by the United States in 1992 and 
has been signed by 143 other countries, guarantees certain civil and 
political rights to all individuals within the jurisdiction of the 
various nations, including the right to be free from torture or cruel 
and inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment, the right to be 
free from slavery, and the right to liberty and security of person.
  The covenant also guarantees the right to freedom of expression, 
thought, conscience and religion; but of significance to today's 
legislation, article 6 of that covenant provides that a sentence of 
death shall not be carried out on a pregnant woman.
  The United States agreed to this prohibition and promised to respect 
and ensure the rights recognized in the covenant to all individuals 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
  In addition, where not already provided for by existing legislation 
or by other measures, the United States agreed to take necessary steps 
to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give 
effect to the rights recognized in that covenant; and so Congress, 
pursuant to that treaty, enacted legislation in 1994 that prohibited 
Federal executions of pregnant women.
  That statute codified the common-law rule which had been recognized 
by the United States Supreme Court in Union Pacific Railway v. 
Botsford. In that case, the Supreme Court explained the common law 
barred execution of a pregnant woman in order to guard against the 
taking of the life of an unborn child for the crime of the mother.
  The majority of executions are carried out by the States; and, 
therefore, it appears that some States have no statutory prohibition on 
executing pregnant women; and for that reason it is necessary to 
implement the treaty for us to move forward with this legislation. It 
is important that the position of the United States be clear and 
unambiguous.
  Now let me address the constitutional authority for this legislation. 
It is well settled that Congress has the authority to enact legislation 
implementing treaties under the necessary and proper clause of article 
I of the Constitution, even if that legislation interferes with matters 
that would otherwise be left to the States. The Supreme Court addressed 
this issue in Missouri v. Holland. In that case, the United States 
entered into a treaty with Great Britain in which both countries agreed 
to take certain steps to protect migratory birds. After ratification of 
the treaty, Congress enacted a Federal statute prohibiting the killing, 
capturing or selling of certain migratory birds, except as permitted by 
regulation of the Department of Agriculture. And so even though 
Missouri challenged this new statute and asserted the statute 
interfered with the powers reserved to the States by the 10th 
amendment, the Court upheld implementation of that treaty by statute.
  In a similar way, the courts have followed similar reasoning in 
upholding of the Hostage-Taking Act, which was again implemented 
pursuant to a treaty; and so this is very appropriate that we enter 
into this legislation today.
  The situation, we might say, contemplated by this legislation may 
occur very rarely, but enactment of the law is clearly worthwhile even 
if it has the potential to save only one innocent life. In recent years 
there have been 40 to 50 women at a time under state-imposed death 
sentences. As of January 1, there were 51 women on death row in the 
various States and 82 percent of those women were age 45 or younger.
  While it may seem unlikely that any of these women would become 
pregnant, the fact is that incarcerated women do become pregnant even 
in maximum security facilities. As our colleague, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey), pointed out during a June 22 debate on a 
proposal to remove the ban on the funding of abortions by the Bureau of 
Prisons, we know that women become pregnant in prison from rape or from 
having a relationship with one of the guards. And in his book, Into 
This Universe: The Story of Human Birth, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, the 
father of Planned Parenthood, recounted a story told to him by a judge 
about a woman who obtained two stays of execution after she became 
pregnant twice through the willing cooperation of her jailer.
  It is not difficult to imagine this scenario recurring, especially 
given the fact that over 80 percent of the women on death row are of 
child-bearing age. This bill does not reflect any point of view on the 
desirability or the appropriateness of the death penalty. Nor does it 
have any relevance to other pending legislation pertaining to DNA 
evidence or other issues related to the guilt or innocence of a person 
who has been convicted of a crime. This bill simply recognizes and 
fulfills this Congress' obligation under the International Covenant on 
Civil and Political Rights, the treaty I referred to, to protect 
innocent unborn children from being executed with their mothers.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, it has been said that legislative redundancy is a 
common sin on the House floor but this bill makes that sin unusually 
self-indulgent. The execution of pregnant women is already illegal 
under Federal law, and it is doubtful that this Supreme Court would 
acknowledge our jurisdiction to impose that dictum on State courts.
  Let me read from Title 18, section 3596, implementation of death 
sentence:


[[Page H6793]]


       In general, a person who has been sentenced to death 
     pursuant to this chapter shall be committed to the custody of 
     the Attorney General until exhaustion of the procedures for 
     appeal of the judgment of conviction and for review of the 
     sentence.
       When the sentence is to be implemented, the Attorney 
     General shall release the person sentenced to death to the 
     custody of a United States Marshal, who shall supervise 
     implementation of the sentence in the manner prescribed by 
     law of the State in which the sentence is imposed. If the law 
     of the State does not provide for implementation of the death 
     sentence, the Court shall designate another State, the law of 
     which does provide for the implementation of a death sentence 
     and the sentence shall be implemented in the manner 
     prescribed by such law; B, pregnant woman, a sentence of 
     death shall not be carried out upon a woman while she is 
     pregnant.

  So I suggest to the members of the committee that this bill is likely 
to affect no one, but it is rushed through in lightning speed in an 
effort to satisfy some particular cause for the moment.
  By contrast, the hate crimes legislation has been bottled up in the 
Committee on the Judiciary by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) 
for over 3 years now. We know that there are nearly 8,000 hate crimes 
in America each year; but that legislation, by contrast, has not seen 
the light of day. Our gun safety legislation continues to be blocked by 
the Congress; nearly 26,000 innocent people dying on the wrong end of a 
barrel each year. This Congress has not even shown the fortitude to 
stand up to the NRA on something as simple as closing the gun show 
loophole which makes guns available to criminals, but we can pass this 
legislation that in all likelihood will help no one.
  This is a leadership that cannot pass a Patients' Bill of Rights; 
that cannot pass the minimum wage; that cannot pass prescription drug 
benefits for seniors; that cannot pass a marriage tax that will help 
middle-class Americans; cannot really do much of anything to help 
people.

                              {time}  1115

  So if we really wanted to protect innocent life, we would pass the 
bipartisan Innocence Protection Act already introduced, which would 
provide DNA tests and competent counsel for death row inmates. This 
legislation was introduced in the wake of widespread evidence across 
the country that innocents have been wrongly committed of capital 
crimes. But instead, we pass legislation that in all probability will 
assist no one.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume 
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), author of the 
legislation.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas 
for yielding me this time. In our Nation a convicted murderer loses the 
right to vote, along with all basic civil rights. In 38 States, a 
convicted murderer may lose even the most fundamental right, the right 
to live.
  But what if within the confines of our judicial and penal system a 
convicted murderer would have the right to kill again. What if, as a 
result of this legal right, a completely innocent human being to whom 
no trespass could be attributed was brutally killed. These hypothetical 
examples could be realized because for the 38 States which impose the 
death penalty, there is no current law which prohibits the execution of 
a pregnant woman who carries an innocent, unborn child.
  Madam Speaker, last week I introduced the Innocent Child Protection 
Act, H.R. 4888, which would make it illegal for any authority, military 
or civil, in any State to carry out a death sentence on a woman who 
carries a child in utero. No unborn child can possibly be guilty of 
committing a crime, therefore, no unborn child should be punished by 
death. H.R. 4888 will protect unborn children by preventing innocent 
human life from being sentenced to death.
  Even in a maximum security facility, women do become pregnant. 
Otherwise, some in Congress would not have tried to require the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons to fund abortions. As of January 1991, 51 women were 
on State death row and 82 percent of them were of childbearing age, age 
45 or younger.
  But how many lives must pay for the crime committed by one of these 
women? Today I ask my colleagues, regardless of whether they are pro-
life or pro-choice, to vote to pass H.R. 4888. An innocent unborn child 
should not have to forfeit his opportunity for a life for a crime that 
his mother has committed. And as the gentleman from Arkansas has also 
pointed out, Alan Frank Guttmacher, commonly known as the ``father of 
Planned Parenthood,'' stated in his book, Into This Universe, the Story 
of Human Birth, he makes the case for a child to be born, and not 
aborted, by a prisoner.
  Madam Speaker, if even the father of Planned Parenthood is against a 
prisoner having an abortion, who can be against legislation to protect 
innocent life from death?
  H.R. 4888 does not make a statement on the appropriateness of capital 
punishment as a means to castigate persons convicted of premeditated 
murder or other serious crimes. H.R. 4888 does not impose on a woman's 
right to choose, for it does not prohibit them from having an abortion. 
This bill merely asks one simple question: Should the government 
execute an unborn child who has committed no crime?
  Madam Speaker, the only answer to this question is no. Therefore, I 
ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4888.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I fully respect the gentlewoman from Florida who has 
introduced this measure. I point out to her that normally, there is 
some Federal jurisdictional requirement that is cited in a bill of this 
kind that applies to a State, and that there is none such in this bill.
  I am not quite sure if she was aware that there was in the Federal 
Criminal Code a measure that precludes in the Federal law at this 
moment a sentence from death being carried out upon a woman while she 
is still pregnant. I would ask the gentlewoman from Florida if she were 
aware of the existence of such a provision in our Federal law.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, what my bill simply says is that 
although there are provisions applying on the Federal death penalty, 
this would make it applicable at the State level.
  Madam Speaker, 38 States do have the death penalty. So this would 
apply to those States that do.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, if I might continue, 
is the gentlewoman familiar with the fact of the limited role of the 
Federal Government with respect to the State function? The New York v. 
U.S. and the U.S. v. Lopez cases limit the role of the Federal 
Government with respect to State function unless there is an explicit 
jurisdictional requirement satisfied.
  Madam Speaker, I raise the question to the gentlewoman, or anybody on 
the floor, what is the jurisdictional authority in this bill?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield.
  Mr. CONYERS. I am happy to yield.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, as the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) had pointed out in his introductory statements, which I 
then blotted out of mine because we did not want to be redundant, he 
had pointed out case after case where it was based on a treaty and then 
it does give the congressional authority to act in this way.
  Madam Speaker, if I could ask the gentleman from Arkansas to reread, 
to recite those particular cases having to do with the treaty. If the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) would yield to the gentleman from 
Arkansas, he would be glad to cite those again.
  Mr. CONYERS. Just a moment. Madam Speaker, I will be happy to yield 
to the gentleman from Arkansas, but before I do, I just wanted to 
remind him and the gentlewoman that the case that I cited, U.S. v. 
Lopez, requires and says that the statute in a bill must cite the 
authority. The authority must be cited. And in this bill, it is not 
cited. That is the question that still remains.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, the Lopez case is a Commerce clause

[[Page H6794]]

case in which the Court had indicated that there had to be a 
recognition of the interstate basis and a legislative history for it. 
And in this case, this is not based upon the Commerce clause, but it is 
based upon the Constitution itself. The necessary and proper clause of 
the Constitution that gives the Federal Government authority to pass 
legislation to implement treaties.
  So this legislation is based upon that clause of the Constitution 
fulfilling our obligation under the treaty that has been signed with 
the United States and 142 other nations, and I would thank the 
gentleman for the question, and direct him to the Missouri v. Holland 
case, which is really directly on point, which recites the authority of 
the Federal legislature to adopt legislation, even for the States, when 
it is carried out to implement a treaty, in that case the Migratory 
Bird Treaty.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I would close 
by merely reminding everyone that these two cases, which both cite very 
clearly and unambiguously that they are not limited to the Commerce 
clause or any other particular part of the Constitution, require that 
the statute must cite the authority. The role of the Federal Government 
with respect to State functions must be made clear and explicit. The 
jurisdictional requirement has to be satisfied.
  I submit to my friends that this is one of the few cases, few bills I 
have ever seen come to the floor that does not cite any authority, 
whatsoever. Now, it may be that in the haste of the moment, this is a 
bill that has not been before the Committee on the Judiciary, so maybe 
my colleagues forgot. We are dealing with a bill that was introduced on 
July 19, 2000. That was a few days ago. So that may be the problem.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), my good friend, for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, one might excuse Vice President Al Gore for not 
knowing that a 1994 Federal law prohibits Federal executions of 
pregnant women, but not State. Last week on NBC's Meet the Press, Mr. 
Gore did not have a clue, and even laughed nervously in response to the 
question.
  A day later, however, all indecisiveness was gone. Mr. Gore came down 
in earnest in favor of executing children, as long as the convicted 
mother chose it. He said, and I quote, ``The principle of a woman's 
right to choose governs in that case.'' According to Mr. Gore, the baby 
is property, mere chattel of no inherent worth, possessing no inherent 
dignity. If the mother is to be punished with death for the commission 
of a crime, the Vice President believes she can take her unborn child 
to the gallows with her.
  Madam Speaker, Mr. Gore's position, in my view, is breathtakingly 
insensitive, callous and punishes an innocent baby, or babies if twins 
are involved, with electrocution or lethal injection.
  Madam Speaker, as a Member of the Congress for the past 20 years, I 
am adamantly opposed to the death penalty, and I was before I came to 
Congress. Yet I respect those who take the contrary view and 
acknowledge that the argument of punishing heinous crimes like 
premeditated murder with death, and the requisite due process rights 
afforded to the accused, makes the argument in favor of the death 
penalty credible, but for me it is not convincing.
  Yet, I would be less than candid if I did not say that I have no 
respect whatsoever for Mr. Gore, and those who take the position to 
permit the execution of children. Mr. Gore's child death penalty is 
totally contrary, Madam Speaker, to internationally recognized human 
rights principles. For example, the International Covenant on Civil and 
Political Rights states clearly in article VI that the sentence of 
death shall not be carried out on pregnant women.
  I would remind my friends that this was the international covenant 
that was touted again and again on the Chinese debate on MFN and PNTR, 
because they had signed it, but not ratified it, and people talked 
glowingly about that very important human rights covenant. And yet it 
states in article VI that the sentence of death shall not be carried 
out on pregnant women.
  Why? I think it should be obvious. Notwithstanding the gross 
distortion of caring and compassion and logic that has been forced on 
society and politicians by the abortion rights movement, it is self-
evident that unborn children are human and alive and worthy of respect.
  The abortion efforts have a curious and I would suggest an 
unreasonable need, obsession is more to the point, to deny the unborn 
child any recognition or respect whatsoever. Can we at least today, 
Madam Speaker, assert that protection for unborn children from the 
death penalty would be a prudent action to take?
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).
  Mr. LaFALCE. Madam Speaker, I have great professional respect and 
personal admiration for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), as 
he well knows. And he and I share a very similar disposition on the 
preciousness of human life.
  I do not believe that human life should be taken, whether it is human 
life within the womb or whether it is human life after the womb, and so 
I oppose the principle and practice of abortion on demand. I also 
strongly oppose the death penalty.
  Unfortunately, I do not think that there is, generally speaking, a 
consistency in approach. Some individuals favor the death penalty for 
virtually any and every case where they want to show that they can get 
tough on crime. I think that is unfortunate.

                              {time}  1130

  I also have a tremendous amount of respect for the Constitution of 
the United States. Today I think we are dishonoring the Constitution. 
We have certain rights, and we have certain prerogatives, and they 
extend to matters within our jurisdiction.
  We can pass legislation dealing with interstate commerce, et cetera, 
but there are certain matters that we cannot address unless there is a 
Federal nexus explicitly declared.
  Now, in case after case, especially under this court, Justice Thomas, 
Justice Scalia, Justice Rehnquist, et cetera, have almost ridiculed the 
Congress because they have passed legislation without even purporting 
to have a Federal nexus.
  What we are doing today is proving them right, that we care little 
about a Federal nexus, that if there is a TV show that can give us a 
temporary political advantage by the introduction and passage of a 
bill, let us do it regardless of the Constitution.
  Well, I ask my friends to have more respect for the Constitution. To 
have an unbelievable intrusion into State law, there is a Federal law 
dealing with this issue for Federal crimes. Now my colleagues are 
talking about State sentences, where the bill before us does not even 
make one reference to a Federal nexus, where it was introduced a few 
days ago, where there has been no hearing, my colleagues do violence to 
the constitutional process. They do violence to the Constitution of the 
United States.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining 
on our side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Hutchinson) has 8 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, I just wanted to point out, again, the Federal basis 
for this, Missouri v. Holland. Justice Holmes, a very distinguished 
jurist, said that the legislation is valid because there was a treaty 
involved; and, under the Constitution, the Federal Government has the 
right to impose legislation that would enforce the treaty nationwide.
  It does not violate the 10th amendment because ``valid treaties are 
as binding within the territorial limits in the States as they are 
elsewhere throughout the dominion of the United States.''
  Clearly, the court has said we have the authority to do this.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Pitts).

[[Page H6795]]

  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, today we will pass legislation to prevent 
innocent children from being executed along with their guilty parents; 
or, as one of the interns in my office so aptly put it, this bill is to 
ensure that a convicted killer cannot decide to kill again, this time 
the innocent child in her womb.
  Now, opponents of this legislation have said that it is unnecessary. 
After all, when has a pregnant woman ever been executed, they ask? I 
agree with them that this bill should be completely unnecessary. 
Although a pregnant woman was once sentenced to death, according to the 
father of Planned Parenthood, Alan Guttmacher, the authorities had the 
good sense to postpone her execution until after she had given birth.
  In fact, the innocent child principle has been the law of the land 
for more than a century. It was under a liberal Democratic Congress in 
1994 that we reaffirmed this common law principle.
  So why do we need to pass this bill? Well, it seems that there are 
those who think it is time to retreat from this long-standing policy. 
Some think, not many, but some very important people think that it is 
okay to execute pregnant women as long as they consent.
  But what about the innocent child in utero who has committed no 
crime? The baby has no choice in the matter, says one of our leaders.
  People on death row are there because they willfully have taken 
another life; and some, several lives. They are not given the death 
penalty for manslaughter or even third degree murder, only for the most 
heinous crimes.
  The innocent child is not guilty of the horrible crimes of its 
mother. So we must defend this common law principle, common sense, in 
the face of liberal activism to legalize the execution of pregnant 
women or their innocent children.
  Madam Speaker, we stand with the American people who believe that 
pregnant women should not be executed, plain and simple.
  Is this a new problem? Yes. But we are not the one who caused it. 
Just examine the comments of the Vice President if one wants to 
understand how this came about.
  I urge support for the Innocent Victim Protection Act.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, who has the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) 
has the right to close.
  Mr. CONYERS. Even when there is no report?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The maker of the motion has the right to 
close in this case.
  Mr. CONYERS. How much time is remaining, Madam Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, just for the gentleman's information, 
I do have two speakers that I will recognize.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this 
time.
  There would be little reason to come to the floor of the House and 
quarrel with this legislation. My distinguished colleague from Florida 
has raised an issue that I think should be part of a series of issues. 
So my angst today is not to quarrel with the fact that I think the 
legislation is weak on Federal nexus and, in fact, as we all have 
debated here today, it is already Federal law. But if this is to reach 
to the 50 States, then here are the questions that I would raise.
  These are such weighty issues. There is so much debate going on on 
the sanctity and the reasonableness of the death penalty that I think 
it is actually a tragedy that we are here today on a very narrow 
function.
  It has already been noted by Human Watch as well as statistics just 
related that this Nation has the most individuals incarcerated. Those 
of us who wish to protect the innocent, we hope that those who have 
been truly convicted of crimes, yes, do have to pay the time. But we 
also are looked upon in this world as a country that favors and 
supports and advocates democracy, justice.
  Just yesterday, we debated the motto ``In God we trust'' to suggest 
that we are a people who believe and love in a higher being. But, yet, 
we have a situation where I come from a State where 135 people have 
been put to their death. We have had a legislative initiative that we 
are now debating that has not even seen a hearing.
  What I would say to my colleagues, Madam Speaker, is that this is an 
issue, or the issue of the death penalty in general, that should be 
looked upon even in the face of its popularity in this country.
  I am always reminded that it is those who stand against adversity or 
stand when others are pointing the finger that they are on the wrong 
side of the issue, if you will, that will rise to the occasion or will 
at least support the values of this country, which is that we believe 
in the protecting of the majority and the minority.
  In the instance of the death penalty, there are legislative 
initiatives dealing with the moratorium. The Governor of Illinois, a 
conservative Republican, has given or rendered a moratorium in the 
State of Illinois because he has doubts as to whether or not those who 
are on death row have truly gotten fair access to justice or that he is 
not in the position to have executed innocent people. We cannot even 
get the legislative initiative with a moratorium a hearing.
  In addition, in my own State, it is well known that the procedures of 
the Board of Pardons and Parole is a procedure racked with inadequacy, 
lacking due process. I have a legislative initiative to standardize the 
due process procedures for administrative boards throughout this Nation 
who make those determinations on the death penalty.
  Finally, I think we have the opportunity to look at putting forward a 
Federal body that deals similarly to what our Governor in Illinois has 
done, a national Federal innocence commission.
  These are the global issues that I think puts this Nation and this 
Congress in a position where the debate is a realistic debate.
  This narrow focus just offered some days ago, no one would come to 
the floor to debate in opposition to the realism or the practicality of 
such a legislative initiative. But I think that it is a shame that we 
are debating this in the narrowness of the focus.
  I hope, Madam Speaker, that we are not politicizing this issue 
because we are engaged in national politics. That is not the place of 
this body.
  So I would say to my Republican colleagues that, if we are to really 
promote this Nation for what it is, democracy and openness and fairness 
and justice, we would have considered the plight of a Gary Graham, we 
would have considered reviewing the entire death penalty, both Federal 
and State, and we would, as I close, Madam Speaker, look at the 
disparity of minorities on death row and seriously address this 
question.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Madam Speaker, here we are again debating a question of 
life, and I am really saddened that we even have to be here.
  I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) raises a great 
question. What is the nexus? But there is an even greater question. 
What is the nexus that the Supreme Court used to say that innocent life 
has no value if, in fact, a mother says it has no value? So the 
question of nexus has tremendous precedent, as set by the Court, in 
overruling laws in my State that said innocent life should be protected 
beyond any shadow of a doubt.
  The second point which I think is very obvious to us is that it is 
right, nobody would come to the floor to say that this is not a proper 
thing to do. What a shame it is that a potential next leader of our 
country was confused on this issue. What that tells me is there is a 
rudder lacking in our moral integrity and foundation in this country 
and it was very well exhibited by that gentleman's statements.
  There is no question in this country that we are paying a tremendous 
moral

[[Page H6796]]

price for the convenience of abortion. This bill is on the floor 
because we still have a tremendous moral wrong in this country. Any way 
that that issue can be discussed and talked about is a bona fide 
actuality on the floor of this House.
  We may not like it, but the truth matters; and the truth is that our 
Founders said that we are all equal, that we all have the right to the 
pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
  Our country is in a sad state of affairs when we fail to recognize 
unborn life. This is just one of the symptoms of that. The gentleman 
from New York (Mr. LaFalce), I grant him, I do not like the 
politicization of this issue. But the realistic facts are we are here 
today because innocent life is being torn from the foundation of what 
would make us a great country.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes, the 
remaining time on our side.
  Madam Speaker, I refer to the Missouri v. Holland case that the floor 
manager cited because it deals with whether incidents of the State are 
covered by treaties entered into by the United States. There the 
Supreme Court said that the supremacy clause means treaties do cover 
State residents, a very important point that is completely unrelated to 
the issue of Federal nexus before us.
  But this bill is an entirely different constitutional animal. This 
bill deals with commandeering State functions and officials. As such, 
the New York v. U.S. and U.S. v. Lopez both reinforce one another and 
say that one must cite the Federal nexus, which this bill does not 
have.
  But I say that to say that the bill may not have been, in haste, 
properly drafted. It does not mean that we cannot correct it. I would 
not object to this bill being passed. I do not oppose the bill on these 
grounds.
  But my colleagues must recall, Madam Speaker, that, without any 
notice, we have had a bill rushed to the floor that was introduced less 
than a week ago. Is this to soften the less than kind, less than 
gentle, somewhat brutal image of the Republican presidential candidate 
after his somewhat callous and callow action on the death penalty in 
Texas?

                              {time}  1145

  I hope not. It seems to me that we have had the execution in the 
State of Texas of Karla Faye Tucker, a born-again Christian. She was 
executed and was mocked later by the governor of Texas, who made a 
whimpering noise and claimed, ``With tears in her eyes, she said, 
`Please Governor, don't kill me.' ''
  And so I am saddened by the fact that we take this small tiny portion 
of the death penalty and bring it to the floor in this very hurried 
manner.
  Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  (Mr. HUNTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the author of this act, 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), one of our great 
leaders in the House on these issues.
  It is very clear, Madam Speaker, that we have built a great and 
enormous system of safeguards to protect criminal defendants, and that 
is because we are very concerned about their rights. I would suggest 
that this bill attempts to transfer just a small part of that concern 
that we have about the criminal, just a very small insignificant 
fraction of that concern, to that unborn child. We should be able to 
give just a little bit of that concern to that child, and that is what 
we are doing right now.
  Our criminal statutes reflect the need to deter and to punish; and 
they can, at the same time, reflect our humanity, and that is what we 
do today. Let us protect the innocent children. Let us pass this act.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, first I want to express my appreciation to the ranking 
member of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for 
the way that he has conducted this debate, as well as the other Members 
across the aisle. I think anytime, as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn) said, that we can discuss the issues of life, that it is a 
healthy debate for the Congress of the United States; and whenever we 
conduct it in a high tone, I think it is even better.
  If I understand the gentleman correctly, he really does not oppose 
the substance of this bill. There have been arguments made that we 
should have a broader debate; that we should look at some additional 
death penalty protections, and those are fair debates as well; but 
today we have this bill before us that is very important. We can do 
something today that not only carries out the intent of the United 
States in signing the treaty with 142 other nations, but we can do 
something to make sure that innocent life is protected and that 
everyone in our society understands that we are clear and unambiguous 
as to our attempt to protect that life.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) indicated these are 
weighty issues. They are weighty issues; but I am so thankful that when 
there is a mooring, that even weighty issues can be simple issues 
because they are based upon a moral foundation. So I believe that we 
can all be together in supporting this legislation. I think it sends a 
strong statement. It certainly supplements the Federal legislation that 
was passed previously. It supplements what the States have already 
done, and I think it really sends a statement to the world that we are 
going to abide by the treaties that we have entered into; that we are 
going to support life under these circumstances. I ask my colleagues to 
support the passage of this bill.
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, I submit the following for the Record.

Should An Innocent Unborn Child Be Executed? Key Points on the Innocent 
                    Child Protection Act (H.R. 4888)

                                                    July 20, 2000.
       The Innocent Child Protection Act (H.R. 4888), introduced 
     by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.) on July 19, 
     2000, prohibits state governments from carrying out a 
     sentence of death on a woman who carries a child in utero.
       This bill does not reflect any point of view on the 
     desirability or appropriateness of imposing capital 
     punishment on persons convicted of premeditated murder or 
     other grave crimes. Nor does this bill have anything to do 
     with other bills that deal with DNA evidence or other issues 
     pertaining to the actual guilt of a person who has been 
     convicted of a capital crime. This bill simply recognizes (1) 
     most states and the federal government do currently impose 
     capital punishment for certain crimes, but (2) no child in 
     utero can possibly be guilty of a crime, therefore (3) 
     Congress should prevent the government from taking the life 
     of an innocent child in utero by prohibiting, within all U.S. 
     jurisdictions, any death sentence from being carried out 
     while a woman convicted of a capital crime carries a child in 
     utero.
       Title 18 U.S.C.A. Sect. 3596, enacted in 1994, already 
     prohibits federal executions of pregnant women, but most 
     executions are carried out by states, and in any event it is 
     just and appropriate to have a uniform law for all 
     jurisdictions on this question.
       Under traditional common law (non-statutory, judge-made 
     law), a death sentence should not be carried out on a woman 
     who carries a child in utero. The purpose of this common law 
     doctrine, as the Supreme Court noted in the 1891 case of 
     Union Pacific Railway v. Botsford, was ``to guard against the 
     taking of the life of an unborn child for the crime of the 
     mother.'' [11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1000, 1002] However, common law 
     offers weak and uncertain protection against the execution of 
     an innocent child in utero.
       While the situation under discussion here may seldom arise 
     in the U.S. in modern times, maintaining and reinforcing the 
     innocent child principle is worthwhile even if it saves only 
     one innocent life in a century. Currently, 38 states (and the 
     federal government) employ the death penalty for certain 
     offenses. As of January 1, 1999, 51 women were on state death 
     rows, of whom 82% were age 45 or younger.
       Women do become pregnant in prison--even in maximum-
     security facilities. As Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Ca.) 
     said on the floor of the House of Representatives on June 22, 
     2000, in a speech in favor of an unsuccessful amendment to 
     require the federal Bureau of Prisons to fund abortions, ``We 
     know that women become pregnant in prison, from rape or from 
     having a relationship with one of the guards.''
       In his 1937 book Into This Universe: The Story of Human 
     Birth, Dr. Alan Guttmacher--the ``father of Planned 
     Parenthood''--wrote: ``A judge has told me that in one of the 
     States a pregnant woman received the ordinary stay of 
     execution on account of pregnancy, and through the willing 
     cooperation of a jailer became pregnant again shortly after 
     her delivery, before the original execution order could be 
     carried out. She was granted a second stay to allow her to 
     give birth to the jailer's child.'' (page 46)

[[Page H6797]]

       In 1976, the U.S. became a signatory to the International 
     Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), which 143 
     other nations have also joined. Article 6(5) states, 
     ``Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed 
     by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be 
     carried out on pregnant women.'' The U.S. entered a partial 
     reservation to Article 6(5), which reads, ``The United States 
     reserves the right, subject to its Constitutional 
     constraints, to impose capital punishment on any person 
     (other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under existing 
     or future laws permitting the imposition of capital 
     punishment, including such punishment for crimes committed by 
     persons below eighteen years of age.'' [italics added for 
     emphasis] Thus, within the reservation itself, the U.S. bound 
     itself not to permit the execution of any woman who carries 
     an unborn child. Congress has constitutional authority to 
     explicitly apply this treaty obligation to the states.
       H.R. 4888's definition of ``child in utero'' (``a member of 
     the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is 
     carried in the womb'') is taken verbatim from the Unborn 
     Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 2436), passed by the House on 
     September 30, 1999, by a vote of 254-172. (1999 House roll 
     call no. 465) Similar definitions and terminology are found 
     in numerous state laws. Like those state laws, this bill has 
     no effect on access to legal abortion, either for women on 
     death row or anybody else.
       Vice President Gore, asked by NBC's Tim Russert whether he 
     agreed with the current prohibition on federal executions of 
     pregnant women, laughed and said, ``I'd want to think about 
     it.'' (Meet the Press, July 16, 2000) On July 17, ``Mr. Gore 
     said he favored allowing a pregnant woman to choose whether 
     to delay her execution until she gave birth. `The principle 
     of a woman's right to choose governs in that case,' he 
     said.'' (The New York Times, July 18) Gore's position 
     implicitly repudiates the innocent child principle embodied 
     in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
     and in Title 18 U.S.C.A. Sect. 3596, both of which flatly 
     prohibit the government from taking the child's life.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, which 
would prevent the execution of a woman who is carrying a child.
  As the lead sponsor of the Innocence Protection Act, I commend the 
authors of the bill for their concern that innocent human beings not be 
executed. However, I urge them to recognize that there may also be a 
second innocent human being involved in such cases--namely the mother 
herself.
  Unfortunately, this very limited measure does nothing to prevent the 
execution of an innocent adult human being for a crime she did not 
commit.
  The Innocence Protection Act of 2000 (H.R. 4167), which Mr. LaHood 
and I have introduced, would prevent such a thing from happening. Its 
two principal provisions concern the two most important tools by which 
the possibility of error can be minimized: DNA testing and competent 
legal representation.
  This legislation arose out of a growing national awareness that the 
machinery by which we try capital cases in this country has gone 
seriously and dangerously awry.
  Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, a total of 653 
men and women have been executed in the United States, including 55 so 
far this year alone. During this same period, 87 people--more than one 
out of every 100 men and women sentenced to death in the United 
States--have been exonerated after spending years on death row for 
crimes they did not commit.
  It is cases like these that convinced such organizations as the 
American Bar Association--which has no position on the death penalty 
per se--to call for a halt to executions until each jurisdiction can 
ensure that it has taken steps to minimize the risk that innocent 
persons may be executed.
  It is cases like these that convinced Governor Ryan--a Republican and 
a supporter of the death penalty--to put a stop to executions in 
Illinois until he could be certain that ``everyone sentenced to death 
in Illinois is truly guilty.''
  It is cases like these that should convince every American that 
Governor Ryan and the American Bar Association are right. We may not 
all agree on the ultimate morality or utility of capital punishment. 
Indeed, you have before you a pair of cosponsors who differ on that 
question. I spent my career as a prosecutor in opposition to the death 
penalty. Congressman LaHood is a supporter of the death penalty. But we 
agree profoundly that a just society cannot engage in the killing of 
the innocent. We have come together in this bipartisan effort to help 
prevent what Governor Ryan has called ``the ultimate nightmare, the 
state's taking of innocent life.''
  I have heard some suggest that the concerns expressed by Governor 
Ryan are somehow peculiar to the State of Illinois. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. The system is fallible everywhere it is in 
place.
  Only last month we received fresh evidence of this with the release 
of the first comprehensive statistical study ever undertaken of modern 
American capital appeals. The study, led by Professor James Liebman of 
Columbia University, looked at over 4,500 capital cases in 34 states 
over a 23-year period. According to the study, the courts found 
serious, reversible error in 68 percent of the capital sentences handed 
down over this period. And when these individuals were retried, 82 
percent of them were found not to deserve the death penalty, and 7 
percent were found innocent of the capital crime altogether.
  These are shocking statistics, Mr. Speaker. It is hard to imagine 
many other human enterprises that would continue to operate with such a 
sorry record. I dare say that if seven out of every 10 NASA flights 
burned up in the upper atmosphere, we'd be reassessing the space 
program. If commercial airlines operated their planes with a 68 percent 
failure rate, we'd all be taking the train.
  Yet even if these statistics are wildly exaggerated, where the taking 
of human life is involved, it seems to me we must strive to reach 
``zero tolerance'' for error. As Governor Ryan recently said, ``99.5 
percent isn't good enough'' when lives are in the balance.
  Nothing we can do will bring absolute certainty. Judges, jurors, 
police, eyewitnesses, defense attorneys, and prosecutors themselves--
all are human beings, and all make mistakes. As a prosecutor for over 
20 years, I certainly made my share of them. But we do have the means 
at our disposal to minimize the possibility of error. And where lives 
are at stake, we have a responsibility to put those tools to use.
  The Innocence Protection Act will help ensure that fewer mistakes are 
made in capital cases. And that when mistakes are made, they are caught 
in time.
  I hope that the authors of today's bill are truly serious about the 
need to prevent the execution of the innocent, and that they will join 
the 79 members of this House--both Republicans and Democrats--who have 
cosponsored the Innocence Protection Act.
  Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4888.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________