[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 25, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H587-H595]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1997, UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE 
                              ACT OF 2004

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 529 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 529

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     1997) 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 bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary 
     now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative Lofgren of 
     California or her designee, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
     read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman

[[Page H588]]

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.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 529 is a modified closed rule that provides for 
the consideration of H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 
2004.
  This rule provides for 2 hours of debate in the House equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  H. Res. 529 provides that the bill shall be considered as read for 
amendment. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution, shall be considered 
as adopted.
  The rule further provides for the consideration of the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute printed in part B of the report of the 
Committee on Rules, if offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren) or her designee, which shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent.
  H. Res. 529 waives all points of order against the amendment printed 
in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules and provides for one 
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  This is a fair rule, Mr. Speaker; and I urge all my colleagues in the 
House to join me in supporting its passage so that we can move on to 
considering the underlying legislation.
  With respect to the underlying legislation, H.R. 1997, I want to 
commend the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) for introducing 
this legislation and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for bringing it to the 
floor this week.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, violence against women and children and 
all of humanity should never be tolerated. Bold, effective steps should 
be taken to reduce violence against women, children, and men, and 
particularly pregnant women. But H.R. 1997 is not about women, and it 
is not about children. It is about politics. It is an attempt to drive 
a wedge between women and their constitutional rights.
  For decades, the constitutional right to privacy, which protects 
women and their reproductive rights, has endured attack after attack. 
This bill is another deliberate strike at reproductive freedom and 
choice and is part of a nationwide strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade or 
to so undermine a woman's right to choose that it becomes meaningless 
in practice. The issue of violence against pregnant women is used to 
cloak the intent and the impact of this bill. Pregnant women are being 
used as pawns in an elaborate chess game to deny women self-
determination and their constitutional rights.
  The agenda is unmistakable. It has been clearly articulated by 
opponents of reproductive rights. A leader of an anti-choice legal 
group has said: ``In as many areas as we can, we want to put on the 
books that the embryo is a person. The blastocele is a person. That 
sets the stage for a jurist to acknowledge that human beings at any 
stage of development deserve protection. That would even trump a 
woman's interest in terminating a pregnancy.''
  H.R. 1997 would set such a stage, pitting rights against one another, 
and the woman's rights are not paramount. In an opinion that was issued 
earlier this year, Christine Durham, Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme 
Court, warned that ``declaring a fetus to be a person entitled to equal 
protection would require not only overturning Roe v. Wade but also 
making abortion a matter of constitutional law, illegal in all 
circumstances, even to save the life of the mother.''
  During the Committee on the Judiciary's markup of this bill, the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) offered an amendment that 
stated: ``Nothing in this section shall be construed as undermining a 
woman's right to choose an abortion, as guaranteed by the United States 
Constitution, or limiting in any way the rights and freedoms of 
pregnant women.'' The amendment failed. If H.R. 1997 should not affect 
or interfere with a woman's right to choose, why then would the 
committee reject this simple statement reaffirming the rights as 
articulated in Roe and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern 
Pennsylvania v. Casey?
  In fact, debate on the constitutional right to choose is unnecessary 
in legislation that seeks to safeguard pregnant women. If protecting 
women from violence is the goal, the straightforward and 
noncontroversial solution is clear: pass the Motherhood Protection Act. 
It accomplishes the same ends, providing additional punishments for 
anyone who injures a pregnant woman and injures a fetus or causes a 
miscarriage. The Motherhood Protection Act does so without necessarily 
raising controversial constitutional issues. The bill could be sent to 
the President for his signature quickly and easily.
  Rita Smith, the executive director of the Denver-based National 
Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said her group tried to work with 
lawmakers writing this legislation to make it more about protecting 
women. She said that they would not go down that road. This seems to be 
more about trying to undo abortion.
  Disappointingly, the bill does little to protect women. In our 
Federal system, criminal law is generally reserved to the States. This 
bill does nothing to address the many State crimes perpetrated against 
pregnant women. This bill would only create a separate criminal count 
on Federal offenses like terror attacks, interstate stalking, and acts 
on military bases or Federal land. If my colleagues are serious about 
reducing violence against women, then fully fund the Violence Against 
Women Act, which expanded protections for all women against acts of 
violence.
  In fiscal year 2003, the Violence Against Women's Act was 
appropriated at $100 million less than the fully authorized level. 
Programs for transitional housing and for Federal victims counselors 
and training for judges were not funded at all, which gives a lie to 
the fact this issue here is to protect women against violence. And rape 
prevention and education was funded at half its authorized level.
  To protect women from violence without undermining reproductive 
freedom, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute. The underlying legislation is a challenge to women's 
constitutional rights. Women's safety and welfare safety should not be 
pawns in an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade. Indeed, women are not being 
protected here. Women are being used.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), my colleague on the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, when a baby is in the womb and someone violently attacks 
the mother and causes injuries or takes the life of that child, then 
the offender should be held responsible, and current law is unjust in 
that case. 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 while committing the crime.
  The Unborn Victims of Violence Act protects the unborn child from 
violent crime. Those who injure or kill the child will be charged with 
a separate offense. The legislation is being called merely symbolic by 
its opponents. But how many women in America would view the loss of 
their wanted unborn child through violent means as merely symbolic?

                              {time}  1430

  All we have to do is ask the woman who has just lost her child after 
a violent attack, it is not the same thing as a simple assault. Clearly 
it is more serious, and it is more emotionally jarring to that woman, 
and it should be treated accordingly.

[[Page H589]]

  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and 
to support the underlying legislation.
  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 her leadership as the Chair of the Woman's 
Caucus and her continued leadership on the issues of protection for 
women and children.
  I rise today to speak to the obvious, I think, confusion, but maybe 
attempt to confuse, because I believe if my colleagues were listening 
to this debate, they could not imagine why any of us would rise and 
have a difference of opinion, and any of us would rise in opposition to 
the rule or the underlying legislation, H.R. 1997. It seems on its face 
to be concerned about women and children.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we are just a few days shy of the 
Peterson case. All of us know the enormous tragedy those families are 
experiencing in the loss of their beautiful daughter and the unborn 
child.
  I would hope that U.S. attorneys and others who protect our society 
across the Nation would rise up and tell America the truth, and that is 
any time that there is an attack on a woman who happens to be pregnant, 
you can be assured there is a criminal provision, a law, by which U.S. 
prosecutors can pursue that defendant or that perpetrator of that 
horrible and horrific crime.
  As a woman it would be an outrage for me to stand on this floor and 
suggest that I am not concerned about women across the Nation, young 
and middle-aged and old, that might be attacked by a predator, who 
attacked them on the basis of their sex, or attack them because they 
are pregnant or have conceived a child. Of course we know a woman looks 
different in different stages of her pregnancy, but it does not matter. 
If that woman has been injured, she has a remedy in the criminal 
courts, and, God forbid, if she has been murdered.
  But the opposition to H.R. 1997 is because it is not intended on its 
face to only protect those harmed by a terrible criminal act. What it 
does is attack the woman who on the basis of the ninth amendment and 
Roe v. Wade has a right to choose her destiny.
  First, H.R. 1997 creates a separate criminal offense for harm to an 
unborn child with a legal status equal to and separate from that of a 
woman. It means that any woman that chooses to get an abortion and/or 
the physician who does the abortion may be subject to criminal 
penalties.
  Number two, it recognizes a member of the species Homo sapiens at all 
stages of development as a victim of crime from conception to birth. 
This affords a fetus, embryo, and even a fertilized egg rights and 
interests separate from and equal to those of the woman. There is no 
recognition of the crime against the woman.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bogus representation of protecting pregnant 
women. The Lofgren substitute, on the other hand, creates a separate 
Federal criminal offense for assaulting a pregnant woman resulting in 
the injury or termination of a pregnancy without engaging in a debate 
over the rights of a fetus. That makes sense because what it does is it 
focuses on the problem, and the problem is that we want women, no 
matter what status they may have, pregnant or not pregnant, young or 
old, to be protected by the laws of this land. But what we are doing 
here is disregarding the laws of this land by making criminal women who 
have the right to make a choice on their own bodies with their pastors 
or religious leaders, their family, their loved ones. No other 
intrusive government should be involved in this process.
  I am confused as to why on this floor we debate this question today 
when there are people who are hungry, there are people who are 
unemployed, there are soldiers who are dying in Iraq, there are people 
without health care, and yet this floor does nothing but criminalize 
innocent women who have the right under the law of this land to make a 
determination about their body and their future.
  I think the better route would be that we recognize our 
responsibility to protect those victims of crime. I served as an 
associate municipal court judge, and I understand the difference 
between right and wrong and the responsibility of government to protect 
our citizens. This is not that type of legislation. I ask my colleagues 
to vote against the rule, and I ask them to vote against the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to be here today, to once again stand up 
for the pro-choice movement and deflect efforts made to undermine it. 
This is not the first time we have visited this issue, and I fear it 
will not be the last.
  It is also unfortunate, that this attempt to undermine all of our 
progress made with women's rights, Congress is closing the door to 
letting us hear other amendments. We must be a true democracy, and we 
must listen to one another on such a pertinent issue. If we are going 
to be legislating a woman's right to choose, I believe we are entitled 
to more input on this subject.
  I am pleased to join my colleague, Zoe Lofgren, in supporting her 
substitute, the Motherhood Protection Act. I believe this is a time for 
pro-choice members to come together across party lines and take 
effective action to protect a mother, while retaining her liberties and 
privacy.
  Violence against women, especially pregnant women, is unacceptable 
and should be punished. I, along with the pro-choice community, am 
dedicated to preserving a woman's right to have a family when she 
chooses--and any criminal act that robs her of a hope-for future child 
is tragic and intolerable. Rather than supporting such common-sense 
measures, my colleagues are instead promoting the Unborn Victims of 
Violence Act, described as ``a sneak attack on a woman's right to 
choose.'' The loss of a wanted pregnancy is a tragedy, but solutions 
should be real, not political.
  The Unborn Victims of Violence Act erodes the legal foundation of a 
woman's right to choose by elevating the legal status of all stages of 
prenatal development. If enacted, the legislation would be the first 
Federal law to recognize a fertilized egg, embryo or a fetus as a 
person who can be an independent victim of a crime. Our Supreme Court 
has held that fetuses are not persons within the meaning of the 14th 
amendment. Nowhere in this legislation is the harm to the woman 
resulting from an involuntary termination of her pregnancy mentioned. 
In fact, the pregnant woman is not mentioned at all.
  The ``Motherhood Protection Act'' is a crime bill that is designed to 
protect pregnant women from violence. The Motherhood Protection Act 
embodies many of the same principles that I offered as amendments in 
the House Judiciary Committee, where Unborn Victims of Violence was 
originally introduced. I have always supported the intent of this bill, 
to protect the life of the pregnant mother who has suffered as a victim 
of a crime of violence and the viability of her pregnancy. However, I 
oppose the means which the drafters of the Unborn Victims of Violence 
Act have used to achieve its end. Like the Motherhood Protection Act, 
all my offered amendments referred to changing language in the bill, 
focusing on the pregnant mother instead of the fetus.
  The Motherhood Protection Act creates a second, separate offense with 
separate, strict, and consistent penalties for assault resulting in the 
termination of a pregnancy or assault resulting in prenatal injury.
  The Motherhood Protection Act recognizes the pregnant woman as the 
primary victim of an assault that causes the termination of her 
pregnancy, and it creates a separate crime to punish this offense. In 
this way, the bill accomplishes the stated goals of the Unborn Victims 
of Violence Act--the deterrence and punishment of violent acts against 
pregnant women--while avoiding any undermining of the right to choose.
  The Unborn Victims of Violence Act 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.
  We have State laws that already address crimes committed against 
pregnant women. The majority of States have statutes on the books that 
address criminal conduct that results in harm to a pregnancy. Many 
States punish murder or manslaughter of an ``unborn child,'' as that 
term is defined by the State law. Some States punish assault, battery, 
or other harm resulting in injury or death to an ``unborn child,'' as 
that term is defined by State law. For other States, if a crime 
committed against a pregnant woman results in termination of or harm to 
a pregnancy, the harm to the pregnancy is an adjunct to the crime or 
may be used as a sentence enhancement.
  Congress can protect pregnant women from violence without resorting 
to controversial bills like the Unborn Victims of Violence Act that 
undermine Roe v. Wade. We must take strong

[[Page H590]]

steps to prevent such attacks and must recognize the unique tragedy 
suffered by a woman whose pregnancy is lost or harmed as a result of 
violence. I am calling on Congress to support tough criminal laws that 
focus on the harm suffered by women who are victimized while pregnant, 
as well as a range of programs that promote healthy childbearing and 
family planning.
  I hope my colleagues realize that the rule on the Unborn Victims of 
Violence Act is not sufficient, and more voices must be heard in these 
critical decisions. Thank you, Congresswoman Lofgren, for taking 
appropriate action for trying to correct a bill designed to turn back 
decades of progress. I support the Motherhood Protection Act, and will 
continue to be a staunch advocate of the pro-choice movement.
  I fully support a woman's right to choose, including a woman's right 
to choose to carry a pregnancy to term. Because Unborn Victims of 
Violence does nothing to protect women and because its clear intent is 
to create fetal personhood, I, along with Planned Parenthood Federation 
of America, oppose this legislation. Congress should adopt a more 
reasoned approach that would protect all women from violence.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  (Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1997, 
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This bill will establish separate 
criminal offenses for the killing or injuring of an unborn baby during 
the commission of a Federal crime involving a pregnant woman.
  While most States have passed fetal homicide laws, under Federal law 
there are currently no legal consequences for the killing or injuring 
of an unborn child during an attack on a pregnant woman. This bill will 
establish a Federal statute for what a majority of the States have 
already classified as criminal, the killing of a fetus or an unborn 
child.
  As a Federal representative, it is essential that I take care of 
those who are at risk in society, and this legislation does just that. 
This is a question of justice in the name of those who do not have a 
voice. Opponents of H.R. 1997 claim that the loss of an unborn child 
only harms the mother. However, that poor accounting fails to consider 
the independent harm to another human being. Current Federal law is 
simply unjust and incomplete. Federal laws must not tell grieving 
mothers and families there was only one victim when, in fact, there 
were two.
  Studies show that in some States murder is the leading cause of death 
of pregnant women, not complications from pregnancy. The Federal 
Government is lagging behind. While a majority of States have enacted 
statutes permitting the prosecution of a person for the murder of both 
a pregnant woman and her unborn child, injuring or killing an unborn 
child during the commission of a violent crime has no legal 
consequences under Federal law.
  A recent study showed that 84 percent of Americans believe that 
prosecutors should be able to bring homicide charges on behalf of an 
unborn child killed in a womb. Unborn victims' legislation has 
withstood legal tests from an Illinois appellate court in People v. 
Ford, which concluded that a State's fetal homicide statute did not 
violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and was not 
unconstitutionally vague. I believe this bill is constitutionally sound 
and provides the proper legal protection that unborn children deserve. 
I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we are here again to consider the Unborn 
Victims of Violence Act, which has for several years unnecessarily 
mired what should be a laudable and uncontroversial effort to punish 
truly heinous crimes in the emotionally charged, and legally suspect, 
back alleys of the abortion debate. This is regrettable because real 
people are suffering real harm while this House has played abortion 
politics instead of punishing truly barbaric crimes.
  This rule provides for consideration of this bill once again, and a 
reasonable substitute that will be offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren). That substitute would deal harshly with the 
perpetrators of these crimes, in some cases more harshly than would the 
underlying bill itself. It would also punish these offenders without 
treading into constitutionally suspect territory. From day one, it 
would be enforceable without question. I urge my colleagues to support 
the substitute and to oppose the underlying bill.
  For those of who are prochoice, the right to choose extends not just 
to a woman's right to have an abortion, but to a woman's right to carry 
a pregnancy to term and to deliver a healthy baby in safety, if that is 
her choice. That is why we supported the Violence Against Women Act, 
that is why we support programs to provide proper prenatal care and 
nutrition to all women, that is why we support proper health and 
nutrition services after birth, and that is why we support other 
initiatives such as the Family and Medical Leave Act. Life does not 
beginning at conception and end at birth. We have an obligation to 
these children and parents throughout and after the pregnancy.
  Let there be no mistake, using physical violence against a woman to 
prevent her from having a child she wants is just as much an assault on 
the right to choose as is the use of violence against women who 
exercise their constitutional right to choose to end their pregnancies. 
A woman and only a woman has the right to decide whether and when to 
bring a child into a world, not an abusive partner, not a fanatic, not 
a Congressman.
  My colleagues should understand we are not talking here just about 
viable healthy fetuses who are ready to be born. This bill says ``at 
any stage of development.'' That means any stage, including violence to 
embryos, violence to zygotes, violence to a blastocyst. I do not 
apologize to my colleagues who have in the past taken offense to the 
use of the correct medical terms for the subject matter we are 
discussing.
  We should have no illusions about the purpose of this bill, that it 
is yet another battle in a war of symbols in the abortion debate in 
which opponents of a woman's constitutional right to choose attempt to 
establish that fetuses, from the earliest moments of development, are 
persons with the same legal rights as the adult women who are carrying 
them. The implication is that anyone who does not share the 
metaphysical slant of the radical antichoice movement that a two-celled 
zygote is a person on exactly the same basis, and with exactly the same 
rights, as a child or adult must secretly favor infanticide.
  This bill, by making the destruction of a fetus, or even a zygote, 
crime against the fetus, without any reference to the terrible harm 
suffered by the pregnant woman speaks volumes.
  Recognizing an embryo as a legal person is at odds with Roe v. Wade. 
The Supreme Court clearly said, ``The unborn have never been recognized 
in the whole sense,'' and concluded that `` `person,' as used in the 
14th amendment of the Constitution, does not include the unborn.'' The 
rhetoric used by supporters of this bill urging that the law must 
``recognize the fetus as a victim'' makes clear the purpose of this 
bill, which is a direct frontal assault on that holding in Roe v. Wade.
  Rather than debate the abortion issue yet again, we should pass the 
Lofgren substitute that provides for the same severe penalties for the 
same terrible crimes without getting into the thorny issue of whether 
an embryo at 30 days of gestation is a legally recognized person. The 
Lofgren substitute provides for two separate crimes, one conviction for 
the assault and murder of the woman, and a new crime involving injury 
to the fetus or termination of the pregnancy. The major difference is 
that the Lofgren bill gives recognition to and imposes serious 
penalties for the additional and truly grotesque crime against the 
woman, not against the fetus.
  If we are serious about this problem of violence against women, we 
have effective remedies at our disposal. If we want to play abortion 
politics, we have an appropriate vehicle before us to do that. Violence 
against a pregnant woman is first and foremost a criminal act of 
violence again a woman that deserves strong preventive measures and 
stiff punishment. According to the Journal of the American Medical 
Association, homicides during pregnancy,

[[Page H591]]

and in the year following birth, represent the leading cause of death 
among women in the United States. Among nonpregnant women it is the 
fifth leading cause of death.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace that while these preventable crimes 
continue to occur, Congress fiddles with largely symbolic legislation 
rather than taking affirmative steps to deal with the problem. Why has 
this Republican-controlled Congress and White House continually refused 
to fund fully the Violence Against Women Act? It appears that many of 
the Members who have signed on to this bill are the same ones who have 
voted to divert funds from protecting women from violence to protecting 
stock dividends from taxation.
  No one who listened to the testimony we have heard in our 
subcommittee could be left unmoved by the murders and assaults against 
women who wanted nothing more than to have a child. We owe it to these 
women, and to those who are closest to them, to ensure that early 
intervention is available, and that States and localities receive the 
full resources of the Violence Against Women Act to prevent violence 
against women by intervening before the violence escalates to that 
level.

                              {time}  1445

  We must enact strong penalties which are not constitutionally suspect 
for these heinous crimes. We should not cloud that issue by plunging a 
legitimate law enforcement effort into the murky waters of the abortion 
debate.
  Finally, this bill opens the door to prosecuting women, or 
restraining them physically, for the sake of a fetus. Some courts have 
already experimented with this approach. The last time we had occasion 
to consider this bill, the Supreme Court had just struck down a 
practice in the then sponsor's home State of South Carolina where a 
hospital would give the results of pregnant women's blood tests to 
local law enforcement for the purpose of initiating legal action 
against those women if they had used crack. Once we recognize a zygote, 
two cells, as having the same legal status as the pregnant woman, it 
would logically follow that her liberty could be restricted to protect 
it. The whole purpose of Roe was to protect that liberty interest. This 
bill would undermine it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise in strong support of the rule and of the underlying bill, 
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I rise today as a pro-life Member 
of this institution to say that this bill is not about the debate over 
the sanctity of human life. This bill is just about justice.
  The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes that when a criminal 
attacks a pregnant woman and injures or kills her unborn child, he has 
claimed two human victims. The bill would establish that if an unborn 
child is injured or killed during the commission of an already defined 
Federal crime of violence, that this is in and of itself a crime. This 
is about justice, Mr. Speaker.
  In current Federal criminal law, an unborn child is not recognized as 
a victim with respect to violent crimes. In fact, this is such a self-
evident fact that at this point in time, 29 States have recognized 
fetal homicide for all or part of prenatal development, hardly a fringe 
issue on the edges of the American culture wars. Twenty-nine States in 
the Union have recognized this as a function of State law, and we 
attempt today to make it a part of Federal law.
  Despite lots of talk, Mr. Speaker, that this is somehow by subterfuge 
about abortion, the bill explicitly provides that it does not apply to 
any abortion to which a woman has consented. And it is well established 
that unborn victims laws do not conflict with the Supreme Court's pro-
abortion decrees.
  This really is not just about the cold and sterile confines of law 
school and courtroom debates. This is really about compassion and about 
families and about tragic loss.
  I would close on this remembrance, the words of Carol Lyons, whose 
18-year-old daughter Ashley and unborn grandson Landon were murdered in 
Scott County, Kentucky, on January 7 of this year.
  She said: ``Nobody can tell me that there were not two victims. I 
placed Landon in his mother's arms, wrapped in a baby blanket that I 
had sewn for him, just before I kissed my daughter good-bye for the 
last time and closed the casket.''
  One story after another. Two victims of violent crime. This for once 
on this blue carpet is not a debate about life, about the most 
contentious issue of our time and our culture. This is about justice, 
this is about compassion, and this is about this Congress standing for 
what justice demands.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support strongly the 
Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to register my opposition to this 
rule and the underlying bill, and I rise to ask my colleagues to look 
at this legislation for what it is, not for what it claims to be.
  We all agree that acts of violence against pregnant women are tragic, 
and our criminal justice system should respond decisively to them. 
Those committing these abhorrent crimes should be punished to the full 
extent of the law.
  Unfortunately, the bill we will be considering under this rule has 
another agenda, and that is to erode and undermine the Roe v. Wade 
decision by treating an embryo or fetus at any stage of development as 
an individual with extensive legal rights, distinct from the mother. 
But if we really want to punish crimes that are committed against 
pregnant women, we can do so in ways that do not tangle this issue with 
the abortion debate.
  As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I was joined by 
several of my colleagues during the markup of this bill in offering 
amendments that would have extricated this issue from abortion politics 
by clarifying its purpose. My amendment, along with amendments offered 
by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), sought to focus squarely on the issue of 
preventing and punishing violence against women and particularly 
pregnant women. The rejection of these amendments clearly reveals that 
supporters of this bill have another objective, and that is to 
legislate fetal personhood as a foundation for depriving women of their 
right to make their own reproductive decisions.
  Violence against women remains a huge problem in today's society; 
and, yes, we absolutely should focus our efforts on addressing this 
issue. According to a Commonwealth Fund survey, nearly one in every 
three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a 
partner during adulthood. That is a staggering figure: one out of every 
three women. And the risk of violence does increase for pregnant women. 
In fact, murder is the number one cause of death to pregnant women. But 
this bill will do nothing to protect pregnant women from violence. In 
fact, the bill makes no mention of the primary victim of violence, the 
pregnant woman, and instead creates a new cause of action on behalf of 
the unborn. This is a step backwards for victims of domestic violence. 
Once again, the attention of the legal system is being turned away from 
efforts to punish violence against women. Instead of protecting women, 
this bill lays the groundwork for establishing fetal personhood and 
eroding the foundation of a woman's right to choose.
  I have long been a strong supporter of the Violence Against Women 
Act, which expanded protections for women against callous acts of 
violence. I believe we are better served by laws that protect women, 
pregnant and nonpregnant alike, from the violence than we are by 
creating a whole new legal framework to establish and protect fetal 
rights. By switching the focus of the crime from the pregnant woman to 
the unborn child, we are diverting attention from the problem we should 
be focused upon, violence against women. Think about it. You cannot do 
this sort of harm or cause these sorts of injuries to a fetus without 
harming and injuring the mother.
  If we are sincere in our desire to punish crimes committed against 
pregnant

[[Page H592]]

women, then we should be addressing that issue without tangling it in 
abortion politics. Let us abandon this thinly veiled attack on abortion 
rights that is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and address the true 
issue by providing real punishments for criminals who attack pregnant 
women.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and underlying bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support 
of the rule and the underlying bill, the Unborn Victims of Violence 
Act, and to urge my colleagues to pass this critical piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, it amazes me to hear the arguments of the opponents of 
this bill, not wanting to protect the rights and the will and the wish 
of this mother who chose the right to carry her child to full term and 
to protect the rights of the father for having justice against the 
murder of the child that they chose to keep. It just amazes me to hear 
that argument.
  Recent studies by State health departments have shown that homicide 
is a leading cause of maternal mortality, as we heard our previous 
speaker say; and it results in the death of both the mother and her 
child, the child that she chose to carry. However, under current 
Federal law, there is only one victim. This bill is not about abortion. 
This bill is about, as my colleague from Indiana said, it is about 
justice: justice for that family, that father who has lost not only his 
wife but his child as well.
  Mr. Speaker, this simply does not make sense. It is time for the 
Federal Government to recognize what the rest of the country already 
knows, that crimes against pregnant women create two victims, the 
mother and the child. We must afford pregnant women and their unborn 
children the full protection of the law that they deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation's laws must protect our most vulnerable 
members of society and fully prosecute those who commit violent acts 
against them. By passing this legislation, we guarantee that protection 
for women and their unborn children, and we create a deterrent against 
future attacks on women of childbearing age. I do not see how this bill 
takes away any rights of protecting those women who are harmed by 
violence. This is not taking the focus off that. This is just adding 
justice for that family who has lost not only the mother but the child 
as well.
  I urge the House to pass the rule and the underlying bill, the Unborn 
Victims of Violence Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to thank the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
  I rise, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims 
of Violence Act. A pregnant woman is probably one of the most 
vulnerable members of our society. Nearly one in three women report 
being physically assaulted during pregnancy and murder is the leading 
cause of death among pregnant women. However, H.R. 1997 does nothing to 
protect pregnant women from violence. Rather, it creates a new cause of 
action on behalf of the unborn. The result would be a step backward for 
victims of domestic violence by once again diverting the attention of 
the system away from punishing violence against women to punishing 
violence against an unborn fetus.
  I heard my colleague earlier talk about compassion and talk about 
justice and try and stir this body to pass legislation that is 
absolutely not needed, to pass legislation that only curries favor with 
a certain portion of the people of these United States. I compare it to 
the currying of favor with those who would oppose same-sex marriages. I 
would say to my colleagues that if we spent all of the time that we 
spend on legislation like this and talking about constitutional 
amendments and directed it towards guaranteeing every child in the 
United States a right to an education, or guaranteeing every person in 
this country a right to health care, or guaranteeing every person in 
this country a right to a job, or guaranteeing every person an 
opportunity to live in a home that is safe and in a safe neighborhood, 
we would spend our time a whole lot better.
  H.R. 1997 marks a major departure from current Federal law by 
elevating the legal status of a fetus at all stages of development. We 
could have passed several of the alternatives that were proposed by my 
colleagues that would have dealt squarely with the issue that is before 
us versus inflaming a division or running a knife between parts of this 
country on divisive issues such as abortion, such as same-sex 
marriages.
  I just call upon my colleagues to stop putting forth legislation 
whose real intentions are covered by the intentions that they put forth 
in the legislation or put forth on the floor. I would encourage all of 
my colleagues to vote against the rule and vote against the underlying 
bill. If we really want to protect women, let us fund the COPS program 
so that there will be more police officers out on the street. If we 
really want to protect women, let us fund fully the Violence Against 
Women Act. If we really want to protect women, let us begin to teach 
young men, and young women as well, the importance of playing fair and 
not being involved in violence and other things. But this legislation 
will not do it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, why would Planned Parenthood and a virtual who's who of 
abortion activists in America so vehemently oppose the Unborn Victims 
of Violence Act and promote a gutting substitute in its stead? Why 
would they take a position so extreme that 80 percent of Americans 
oppose it?
  Why is it that on the floor of this House, so many intelligent, 
talented, and gifted lawmakers to whom so much has been given are going 
to such great lengths to deny basic protections in law for an unborn 
child who has been shot, beaten, stabbed, or otherwise mauled by an 
attacker, even taking the irrational step of opposing a definition that 
was overwhelmingly passed in this body 417 to zero?
  Could it be that America's abortion culture, a culture of death, has 
so numbed our hearts and dulled our minds that we have become 
unwilling, or perhaps incapable, of recognizing the obvious? Could it 
be denial with a capital D?
  Amazingly, as a result of breathtaking breakthroughs in medicine, 
today unborn children are often treated as patients in need of curative 
procedures in healing just like any other patient. Is the concept of an 
unborn child as a victim really so hard to grasp, even when we are not 
talking about abortion, but assault by a mugger? Have the soothing 
voices of denial by credentialed people, especially in medicine and the 
media, ripped off our capacity to think?

                              {time}  1500

  Has the horrific spectre of almost 45 million poisoned or dismembered 
babies legally enabled by Roe v. Wade robbed us of our capacity to see 
and understand and empathize? Is it a lacking in logic or courage or 
common sense or compassion? Have unborn children become mere objects, a 
dehumanizing and deplorable status that feminists rightly rebel 
against? Should a mugger, like an abortionist, have unfettered access 
to maim or kill a baby without triggering a separate penalty for the 
crime?
  For years, Mr. Speaker, Congress has updated and strengthened laws 
and stiffened penalties for those who commit violence against women, 
and that is as it should be. In December of last year, President Bush 
signed my comprehensive antitrafficking legislation, the Trafficking 
Victims Protection Act of 2003, and before that President Clinton 
signed landmark legislation that I authored the Victims of Trafficking 
and Violence Protection Act, 2000. I would remind my colleagues that 
included in my law as Division B was the Violence Against Women Act, a 
$3.2 billion 5-year authorization for a multitude of efforts to 
mitigate Violence Against Women, provide shelters, and a myriad of 
protection initiatives.
  So women who are victims of violence clearly need every legal 
protection, shelter and assistance a caring society has to muster, but 
I would respectfully submit to my colleagues so do children. A victim 
is a victim, it

[[Page H593]]

seems to me, no matter how small. Why is it so difficult to recognize 
an unborn child as a victim who is also capable of suffering severe 
trauma, disfigurement, disability, or even death? Unborn children feel 
pain when they are shot or beaten. They bleed and they bruise easily. 
Unborn children are as vulnerable as their mothers to an assailant 
wielding a knife, a gun, or a steel pipe.
  Mr. Speaker, the amniotic sac is like a protective bubble, but it is 
not made of Kevlar. It pierces easily. Support the Unborn Victims of 
Violence Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to this rule and 
to H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This bill 
unnecessarily redefines a crime. Why? Not to deter or prevent violence. 
It does not do that. Not to ameliorate the effect of violence. It does 
not do that. Not to help the victims of violence. It does not do that. 
There clearly is an ulterior motive here, a different agenda that the 
supporters have.
  There is no question that the loss or harm to a woman and her fetus 
is absolutely devastating, and those who injure or kill a pregnant 
woman or her fetus should be punished, and families should have 
appropriate redress for their loss, but this bill would not accomplish 
that. This bill seeks to create a unique Federal criminal offense for 
acts that cause injury or death to an unborn fetus. Tellingly, it does 
not create any comparable offense for killing or injuring the woman 
bearing the fetus. I think that makes it clear that the real purpose 
here is not to protect the victims of violence, not to prevent 
violence, but to give the fetus equal legal status to the mother and 
thus to undermine the legal foundation of Roe v. Wade.
  I challenge the supporters of this bill to be logically consistent 
and support the substitute permitted under this rule, the Motherhood 
Protection Act, which would severely punish crimes against pregnant 
women without unnecessarily engaging in the abortion debate. I would 
also remind my colleagues that protecting pregnant women is just one 
part of combating all forms of violence that threaten women across this 
Nation. We must renew our commitment to this issue and focus our 
efforts on passing measures that are aimed at protecting all women from 
violence, and here I challenge the supporters again to fully fund 
programs such as the Violence Against Women Act that actually provide 
lifesaving services to battered women.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 1997.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  (Ms. HART asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of the rule and in support of the underlying bill 
and, along with some of my colleagues, with a little bit of 
mystification as to the reaction of those who oppose the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  It appears as though we have some ignorance of facts going on here. 
Some of the Members and many of the Members remember the case of Laci 
Peterson. In fact, it is being adjudicated right now in the State of 
California. Laci Peterson's mother, Sharon Rocha, called me, the prime 
sponsor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and Senator DeWine, who 
is the sponsor of the legislation in the Senate, and requested that we 
name the bill in honor of her daughter Laci and her unborn grandson 
Conner. We did so without hesitation. It was very simple to understand 
and do so as a result of her request and also understand the grief that 
she and her family felt as a result of the murder of her daughter and 
her unborn grandson. She said, ``Please understand how adoption of a 
single-victim proposal,'' one that will be offered in opposition to the 
underlying bill, ``would be a painful blow'' to the victims' family, a 
family like Ms. Rocha's, ``who are left to grieve after a two-victim 
crime because Congress would be saying that Conner and other innocent 
victims like him are not really victims, that, indeed, they never 
really existed at all. But our grandson did live,'' she says. ``He had 
a name, he was loved, and his life was violently taken from him before 
he ever saw the sun.''
  Unfortunately, the Peterson case is not the only case like this; more 
recently the family in Kentucky that just helped the Kentucky 
Legislature pass legislation similar to this in the Kentucky State 
Legislature.
  We need to pass a bill that recognizes two victims. There are two 
victims. In fact, our bill specifically separates abortion from an act 
of violence against the mother. We are talking about a mother and a 
family who have chosen to bear a child. That family is preparing for 
that child's birth. That family has often named that child. That child 
is actively now a member of that family. But, unfortunately, facts in 
this world make some pretty ugly figures. We see that where statistics 
were kept about the cause of death to pregnant women in Maryland, 
Illinois, and New York, that fully more than one-quarter of the 
pregnant women who died died at the hands of a criminal. They were 
victims of homicide. Along with their death was the death of their 
unborn child. Why then should we not recognize two victims? There were 
two victims. There were two victims in the Peterson case and two 
victims in all of those statistics that New York, Maryland, and 
Illinois kept.
  If our job here as legislators is not to recognize crime and 
prosecute crime, then I am not really sure what it is. I request my 
colleagues to support the rule for the two-victim Unborn Victims of 
Violence Act, the Laci and Conner law, and also to support the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for her leadership on this issue and so many others and for 
her yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill and 
in support of the Lofgren amendment, which will be on the floor 
tomorrow.
  Over the past 5 months, this body has dealt reproductive rights and 
women's health a one-two punch, first with the passage of the so-called 
partial birth abortion ban, which ignores the health and life of the 
woman, and now with this bill, which again ignores the health and life 
of the woman.
  I have kept a scorecard of the antichoice action since the Republican 
majority took over in 1995, and if this rule and its underlying bill 
pass, it will mark the 202nd action against a woman's right to choose, 
which is exactly what this bill is intended to do.
  According to this bill, anyone could be a murderer since no intent to 
harm the fetus is required. So in other words, if a pregnant woman is 
on an airline and crashes, is the airline now liable for two deaths? If 
a woman is working out in a gym with a trainer and miscarries, is the 
trainer a murderer? Pregnant women will become a liability for stores, 
gyms, and other businesses, and their freedom to perform daily tasks 
will be restricted.
  This bill is not a domestic violence bill, and it does absolutely 
nothing to protect women who are victims of domestic violence. What 
this bill does is for the first time in Federal law, this bill, the 
underlying bill, will give a fertilized egg the same legal recognition 
and standing as a man or a woman. Under this bill a criminal could 
avoid stiffer penalties as long as he causes no harm to the fetus even 
though the pregnant woman might be brutally beaten and victimized.
  It is insulting that the authors of this legislation would use 
violence against women as the vehicle to attack a woman's right to 
choose, which is what this bill is really about, whittling away, piece 
by piece, legislation by legislation, a woman's right to choose. This 
bill does absolutely nothing to address the violence against women, but 
the Lofgren amendment, which will be on the floor tomorrow, does, and 
the Lofgren substitute would severely punish crimes against pregnant 
women without tangling juries and prosecutors in the abortion issue. 
The Lofgren

[[Page H594]]

amendment protects pregnant women without limiting their very basic 
rights and without redefining the Constitution to establish fetal 
personhood.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill 
and support the Lofgren amendment and substitute tomorrow.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia, the 
distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to speak in support of the 
rule to consider H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and to 
recognize fetal homicide as a crime, a crime under Federal criminal 
proceedings. And I want to thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. 
Hart) as well as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for introducing 
this legislation, which I believe represents the majority opinion of 
Americans across this country.
  According to a Fox News poll conducted in August of 2003, 79 percent 
of the electorate believes that prosecutors should be able to charge an 
assailant with the death of an unborn child resulting from their act of 
violence. A similar Newsweek poll conducted in May of 2003 revealed 
that 56 percent of the people believe that if someone kills a fetus 
still in the womb, as well as the mother, that person should be charged 
with two murders instead of one.
  Considering that 29 States, including my own State of Georgia, have 
already passed unborn victims of violence laws, it is past time to 
enact such a law at the Federal level. Let me assure the opposition to 
the legislation that H.R. 1997 does not supersede State laws, but it 
rather applies only to already defined Federal crimes. This debate is 
simply about prosecuting criminals. It is not an abortion bill, but 
rather a crime bill, and under this bill it is necessary to prove 
beyond that a defendant had intent to do criminal harm at least towards 
the mother. The legislation is about identifying victims, and I urge 
passage of the rule so that we can move on to debating and passing this 
vital piece of legislation.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle complain that the Unborn 
Victims of Violence Act does not address the mother.

                              {time}  1515

  Well, we have laws to protect the mother in regard to violence and 
murder.
  I want to remind Members on the other side of the aisle who are 
opposing this legislation also that in regard to the mother and 
protecting the mother, a strategically directed blow to a mother's 
abdomen resulting in minimal injury to the mother very well could 
result in the death of a 6\1/2\- or 7-pound unborn baby, just like 
Conner Peterson, and the mother's injury could be a minor contusion. So 
you are going to say you solve that problem by instead of slapping one 
wrist, slap two? Give me a break.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 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 want to reiterate something that the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) just said: It is really important 
to remember that there are laws to protect the woman, and it is 
important that we strengthen those laws and make sure those laws are 
solid. But we also need to be concerned about children and unborn 
children.
  When we talk about child abuse in this country and we talk about 
children's protection, often many of the Members who are critical of 
this bill have been among the leaders in that effort, and I would like 
to see them join with us in this one. In fact, the poll that the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) referred to also showed that 69 
percent of those who consider themselves prochoice support this 
amendment that causes the perpetrator of a violent action that causes 
the death of an unborn baby to be charged with murder.
  In other words, this is not really an abortion debate, this is how do 
you feel about the legal protections for the unborn baby? And even 
prochoicers, 69 percent, say they favor this amendment.
  I want to reiterate some of the points that the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), who has been the leader of this effort, has 
also said.
  We followed the news accounts of the tragic double murder of Laci and 
Conner Peterson. Not one, but two lives were lost. Under California 
law, the killing of Laci and Conner is being prosecuted as a double 
murder with two victims. Unfortunately, in some parts of the country, 
as well as under Federal law, Laci and Conner's deaths would not be 
viewed as a crime against two victims, but rather just one. This is 
clear violation of justice, and the Peterson case has helped highlight 
this fact.
  Today we have the opportunity to correct a shortcoming in Federal law 
that does not allow an unborn child to be identified as a second victim 
of murder if killed while on a military base or other location under 
Federal jurisdiction. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as 
Laci and Conner's Law, would correct that loophole and ensure that the 
perpetrator of the double murder be prosecuted and punished 
accordingly.
  It is unbelievable to me that some Members of Congress would like 
Federal law to only recognize the death of one victim in such cases 
under Federal jurisdiction. That would not get the same protection as 
Laci and Conner Peterson did. The Lofgren one-victim substitute 
amendment which will be allowed to be offered under the rule is 
offensive to those who have lost loved ones.
  Mr. Speaker, everyone has followed the news accounts of the tragic 
double murder of Laci and Conner Peterson in California just before 
Christmas in December 2002. Not one, but two lives were lost as was 
plainly evident when the bodies of both Laci and Conner washed up on 
the shore many months later.
  Under California law, the killing of Laci and Conner is being 
prosecuted as a double murder with two victims. Unfortunately, in some 
parts of the country, as well as under Federal law, Laci and Conner's 
deaths would not be viewed as a crime against two victims, but rather 
one. This is a clear violation of justice--and the Peterson case has 
helped highlight this fact. Consistently, in poll after poll, 80 
percent of Americans say they believe there are two victims in the 
killing of a pregnant mother and her unborn baby.
  Today, we have the opportunity to correct a shortcoming in Federal 
law that does not allow an unborn child to be identified as a second 
victim of murder if killed while on a military base or any other 
location of Federal jurisdiction. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, 
also known as ``Laci and Conner's Law,'' would correct that loophole 
and ensure that the perpetrator of the double murder be prosecuted and 
punished accordingly.
  It is unbelievable to me that some Members of Congress would like 
Federal law to only recognize the death of one victim in cases such as 
the murder of Laci and Conner Peterson. The Lofgren one-victim 
substitute amendment, which will be allowed to be offered under the 
rule we are debating, is patently offensive to the relatives of double 
murder victims who simply want justice to be done in the prosecution of 
the individuals who killed their loved ones.
  Sharon Rocha, the mother of Laci Peterson, has expressed her 
opposition to the Lofgren amendment. In a recent letter, she stated:

       I hope that every legislator will clearly understand that 
     adoption of such a single-victim amendment would be a painful 
     blow to those, like me, who are left alive after a two-victim 
     crime, because Congress would be saying that Conner and other 
     innocent unborn victims like him are not really victims--
     indeed that they never really existed at all. But our 
     grandson did live. He had a name, he was loved, and his life 
     was violently taken from him before he ever saw the sun.

  While the Peterson case might be the most widely known two-victim 
murder case at this time, many other families have also experienced the 
incredible pain of having lost a daughter or sister or spouse who was 
pregnant with an unborn child at the time of her murder. These 
families, too, are calling on Congress to bring about justice and enact 
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
  The rule under consideration now is fair to both sides, allowing for 
both a substitute amendment and a motion to recommit. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of the rule.
  Tomorrow, as we come to vote on the base bill and the substitute 
amendment, I hope my colleagues will consider the plea of Sharon Rocha, 
Laci Peterson's mother, and reject the one-victim substitute. There 
were two victims in the murder of Laci and Conner Peterson,

[[Page H595]]

and in their honor, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Unborn 
Victims of Violence Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the sad thing about this bill is that it is not violence 
against women, it is violence against pregnant women, and, while that 
is an abhorrent thing, it should be treated as violence against women. 
We all know and believe that.
  What this bill does is reduce women to vessels, to wombs. It says 
that they are the ones that matter. If that were not the case, then 
this Congress would fund the Violence Against Women's Act.
  Recently the majority leader of the House said in an interview that 
he thought all women should be in the home and that their husbands 
should give all the structure. Well, maybe we will get a bill on the 
floor pretty soon that says every woman in America of child-bearing age 
must be pregnant at all times and must not be allowed to leave the 
house. That, of course, then does say that older women who are past 
child-bearing age are fair victims for violence because we have not 
funded the Violence Against Women's Act. But if they are pregnant, then 
we will really look after them.
  What a narrow-minded thing that is. I would like all the Members who 
think this is a great idea to go home and tell their mothers and 
daughters and their sisters and all the rest of their female relatives 
that only if they are pregnant do they matter to the Congress of the 
United States.
  It is appalling that we have had over 200 votes whittling away at 
this since 1995. I honestly would not put anything past the Congress 
here, and I would expect if the majority leader comes up with his bill 
to force women to stay at home, it would be a good hearing and be right 
out here on this floor, even though people are without jobs, people are 
going hungry, health care is almost nonexistent in many places, and we 
are fighting a war that is causing us casualties on a daily basis. But 
what do we debate? This. This takes precedence over everything else.
  So, I just say again to the women of the United States, look out, 
sisters. You just do not matter here anymore.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will just take enough time to say I urge my colleagues 
to support this rule so we can get on with the real debate on both the 
underlying bill and the substitute to it.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 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.

                          ____________________