Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 22 (Thursday, February 26, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 22 (Thursday, February 26, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H637-H668]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2003

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 529, I
call up 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, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Pursuant to House Resolution
529, the bill is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 1997 is as follows:

H.R. 1997

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Unborn Victims of Violence
Act of 2003'' or ``Laci and Conner's Law''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.

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

``CHAPTER 90A--PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN

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

``Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

[[Page H638]]

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

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

SEC. 3. MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.

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

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

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

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

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill, modified
by the amendment printed in part A of House Report 108-427, is adopted.
The text of H.R. 1997, as amended, as modified, is as follows:

H.R. 1997

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Unborn Victims of Violence
Act of 2004'' or ``Laci and Conner's Law''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.

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

``CHAPTER 90A--PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN

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

``Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

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

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

SEC. 3. MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.

``Sec. 919a. Art. 119a. Death or injury of an unborn child

``(a)(1) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in
conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in
subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily
injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, a child,
who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is
guilty of a separate offense under this section and shall,
upon conviction, be punished by such punishment, other than
death, as a court-martial may direct, which shall be
consistent with the punishments prescribed by the President
for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the
unborn child's mother.
``(2) An offense under this section does not require proof
that--
``(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or
should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying
offense was pregnant; or
``(ii) the accused intended to cause the death of, or
bodily injury to, the unborn child.
``(3) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby
intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child,
that person shall, instead of being punished under paragraph
(1), be punished as provided under sections 880, 918, and
919(a) of this title (articles 80, 118, and 119(a)) for
intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death
penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this
section.
``(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are
sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926, and
928 of this title (articles 118, 119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a),
122, 124, 126, and 128).
``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit
the prosecution--
``(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person
authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or
for which such consent is implied by law;

[[Page H639]]

``(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the
pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
``(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
``(d) In this section, the term `unborn child' means a
child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who
is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at
any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such subchapter is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 919 the following new item:

``919a. 119a. Death or injury of an unborn child''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 2 hours of debate on the bill, as
amended, it shall be in order to consider a further amendment printed
in part B of the report, if offered by the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lofgren) or her designee, which shall be considered read, and
shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 1 hour of debate on the
bill.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).

General Leave

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1997 currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, on January 7, 18-year-old Ashley Lyons and her unborn
son, Landon, were murdered in Scott County, Kentucky. Current Kentucky
law regards this crime as having only a single victim. But Carol Lyons,
Ashley's mother and Landon's grandmother, 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.'' We are
here today to tell Carol Lyons she is right. There were two victims
that day.
The Kentucky legislature has recently acted to recognize Landon as a
victim under Kentucky law, and Kentucky's Governor is going to sign
that legislation. But today, Congress has yet to pass legislation
recognizing unborn victims of violence under Federal law. The House has
done so twice by large margins, but the Senate has failed to act.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act provides that if an unborn child
is injured or killed during the commission of crimes of violence
already defined under Federal law, prosecutors can bring two charges,
one on behalf of the mother and the second on behalf of the unborn
victim. Indeed, the House of Representatives in the 106th Congress, by
a unanimous 417 to nothing vote, passed the Innocent Child Protection
Act, a bill only two sentences long, that banned the Federal execution
of a woman while she carries a ``child in utero.'' ``Child in utero''
is defined in that bill exactly, to the word, as it is in this bill,
namely, as ``a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of
development, who is carried in the womb.''
Now, opponents of H.R. 1997 will argue that harm to an unborn victim
should simply be considered an additional harm to the mother, not an
independent harm to another human being. Yet, a vote for the Innocent
Child Protection Act two Congresses ago cannot be defended on the
grounds that executing a pregnant woman would cause her to suffer
additional harm because there can be no additional harm exceeding the
ultimate and final punishment of death. Since the only logical
rationale for the support of the Innocent Child Protection Act was to
prevent the killing of an innocent unborn child, H.R. 1997, which also
recognizes unborn victims, should have similarly overwhelming
bipartisan support. We shall see.
The legislation before us now requires us to reflect on the goals and
purposes of the criminal law. Ultimately, the criminal law is not a
schedule of punishments. It is an expression of society's values. It is
an expression of society's values. Anything less than the legislation
before us today simply does not resonate with society's sense of
justice. The tragic murders of Laci and Conner Peterson in California
have drawn national attention to unborn victims and the American people
have overwhelmingly responded with more than 80 percent support for
bringing two separate charges against their murderer.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act protects the right of a mother to
choose to bring her wanted and loved child to term, safe from the
violent hands of criminals who would brutally deny her that right. This
bill, however, has nothing to do with abortion. Let me repeat that. The
bill has nothing to do with abortion. That fact could not be expressed
more clearly in the legislation which explicitly excludes abortion-
related conduct. Further, the Supreme Court, in Webster v. Reproductive
Health Services, has already refused to strike down Missouri's unborn
victims of violence law, stating that it ``does not by its terms
regulate abortion.'' Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1997, just like the Missouri law
that the Supreme Court refused to strike down, does not by its terms
regulate abortion and, indeed, H.R. 1997 includes provisions that
specifically exclude abortion-related conduct.
Both before and since the Webster decision, every single unborn
victims law passed by State legislatures that has been challenged in
court has been upheld. Anyone who claims this bill has anything to do
with abortion and opposes it on those grounds is inviting this body to
focus not on unborn child victims, but on red herrings.
Tracy Marciniak, whose unborn child was murdered by her husband, has
told Congress, ``Please don't tell me that my son was not a murder
victim.'' The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, I hope, will pass this
body overwhelmingly today if only each Member opens their eyes to the
photo of the dead body of Tracy Marciniak's murdered child and opens
their hearts to the mothers who have implored Congress to give their
unborn babies the status they deserve under the criminal law. I urge my
colleagues to do so by supporting this legislation before the House
today.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I will include for the Record two letters
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services, and I have exchanged regarding the two
committees' jurisdictional claims on this legislation.
Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 9, 2004.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, Rayburn HOB, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: I am writing to you concerning
the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Armed
Services in matters being considered in H.R. 1997, the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act of 2003.
I recognize the importance of H.R. 1997 and the need for
this legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, at this
time I will waive further consideration of this bill by the
Committee on Armed Services. However, the Committee on Armed
Services asks that you support our request to be conferees on
the provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any
House-Senate conference. Additionally, I request that you
include this letter as part of your committee's report on
H.R. 1997.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
With best wishes.
Sincerely,
Duncan Hunter,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, February 9, 2004.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hunter: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 1997, the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003.''
H.R. 1997 was secondarily referred to the Committee on Armed
Services because section 3 of the bill relating to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice falls within its Rule X
jurisdiction. I appreciate your willingness to forgo
consideration of the bill.
I acknowledge that by agreeing to waive its consideration
of the bill, the Committee on Armed Services does not waive
its jurisdiction over the bill or any of the matters under
your jurisdiction in Section 3.
I will include a copy of your letter and this response in
our Committee's report on H.R. 1997 and the Congressional
Record during consideration of the legislation on the House
floor.

[[Page H640]]

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called Unborn Victims of
Violence Act. Here we are again to consider a bill which has now, for
three Congresses, unnecessarily mired what should be a laudable and
uncontroversial effort to punish truly heinous crimes in the
emotionally charged and legally suspect back allies of the abortion
debate. This is regrettable, Mr. Speaker, because real people are
suffering real harm, while this House has played abortion politics
instead of acting to punish truly barbaric crimes.
The issue today is straightforward: Is it or is it not necessary to
enact a bill making a statement endorsing the controversial and legally
revolutionary notion that a fetus is a legal person from the moment of
conception in order to punish these criminals with the severity that
they justly deserve?
That is the heart of the issue. The proponents of this bill are
taking what should be a straightforward issue and unnecessarily turning
it into a controversial one.
Why does this matter? Quite simply, because if the law recognizes
that a fetus is a legal person from the moment of conception, as this
bill would do, when it is a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, a simple
collection of undifferentiated cells, then the law must recognize and
protect the rights of that person on a legal basis with the rights of
the adult pregnant woman. If our laws recognize that, then there can be
no right to choose, because, logically, terminating a pregnancy even in
its earliest stages would be killing a fully legal person.
So when the proponents tell you that this is not about the right to
choose, this is not about the right to have an abortion, remember that
very simple and clear fact. And, remember that we have an alternative
that is just as tough on these criminals: the Lofgren substitute. We do
not have to choose between an assault on Roe v. Wade and permitting
these heinous criminals to walk free.

{time} 1030

That is a false choice, but I do not ask my colleagues to believe me.
Take the proponents at their word.
Senator Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
a sponsor of this bill in the other body, had this to say, ``They say
it undermines abortion rights. It does, but that's irrelevant.'' CNN,
May 7 last year.
January 19 last year, Samuel B. Casey, executive director of the
Christian Legal Society, told the Los Angeles Times, ``In as many areas
as we can, we want to put on the books that the embryo is a person.
That sets the stage for a jurist,'' a judge, ``to acknowledge that
human beings at any stage of development deserve protection, even
protection that would trump a woman's interest in terminating a
pregnancy.''
May 19 last year, Dr. Joe Cook, vice president of the American
Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, was quoted by
the Associated Press as saying, ``We have to approach this in a way
that's doable, a step at a time. This bill is aimed at establishing
that a fetus in utero is a human being and has human rights.''
So please do not insult our intelligence by saying this bill is not
about abortion rights.
The proper question is not whether we will recognize a separate or a
new crime, but how we will do so. The Lofgren substitute recognizes a
special kind of evil embodied in these crimes, but would recognize the
assault on the fetus as a second crime against the pregnant woman, a
second, separate crime, but against the pregnant woman, not against the
fetus. The distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution criticized that point of view as the ``ideology of those
who are unwilling to recognize the unborn child in the law.''
Precisely. That is the threat to Roe, and despite the disclaimers in
the bill and the disclaimers of the distinguished chairman a few
minutes ago, that is what we are talking about today.
If a fetus is recognized as a legal person, then this bill would open
the door to barring abortions, to prosecuting women or to restraining
them physically for the sake of the fetus. Some courts and State
governments 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 in which a hospital would give the result of pregnant women's
blood tests to local law enforcement for the purpose of initiating
legal action against those women who might take action that might in
some way endanger the fetus. Once we recognize even 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 its
interests. The whole purpose of Roe is to say that her liberty
interests trump the interests of the fetus. This bill says exactly the
opposite.
For those of us who are prochoice, the right to choose extends not
just to a woman's right to have an abortion if she wants, but also to
her right to carry a pregnancy to term if she wants and to deliver a
healthy baby in safety. 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 a birth. That is why we support other
initiatives like the Family and Medical Leave Act. We do not believe
that life begins at conception and ends at birth. We have an obligation
to these children and to their parents both prenatally and postnatally.
Let there be no mistake, using physical violence against a woman to
prevent her from having a child that she wants is just as much an
assault on the right to choose as is the use of violence against women
who wish to exercise their constitutional right to choose to end their
pregnancy. A woman, and only a woman, has the right to decide when and
whether to bring a child into the world; not an abusive partner, not a
fanatic, not even Congress.
If we are serious about this problem, and the problem of domestic
violence against pregnant women, we have effective remedies at our
disposal. If we want to play abortion politics, we have an appropriate
vehicle, this bill, before us for that purpose.
Violence against a pregnant woman deserves strong preventive measures
and stiff punishment. According to the Journal of the American Medical
Association, homicides during pregnancy, and in the year following
birth, are the leading pregnancy-related 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
designed to interfere with the right to choose rather than taking
affirmative steps to deal with this real problem. Why does this
Republican-controlled Congress and White House continually refuse to
fund fully and adequately the Violence Against Women Act? It appears
that many of the Members who have signed on to this bill are the same
ones who voted to divert funds from protecting women from violence to
protecting stock dividends from taxation.
We owe it to these victims to enact strong penalties, ones which are
not constitutionally suspect, to end these heinous crimes. I urge that
we adopt the Lofgren substitute to make an assault that harms a fetus a
second crime with just as severe or more severe penalties as with this
bill, but a second crime against the women so as to not to get into the
question of rights of the person to full personhood, which is, of
course, the purpose of this bill, but would undermine Roe v. Wade,
despite the disingenuous disclaimer of some of the other people on the
other side. Let us not crowd the issue of fighting domestic violence,
of fighting violence against women and pregnant women, by plunging a
legitimate law enforcement effort into the murky waters of the abortion
debate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to make 3
points.

[[Page H641]]

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York seems to imply that this
bill has to do with tax cuts and appropriation levels. It does not. It
has to do with the criminal law, and as an aside, the criminal law is
an expression of the sense of values of the legislative body that puts
the criminal law on the books.
Secondly, the gentleman from New York seems to think that we are
plowing new ground in making a definition of what a child in utero is
and giving the child in utero the protections that are contained in
this bill. That is a settled issue, and on July 25, 2000, with the
gentleman from New York's support, we passed the Protection of Innocent
Children Act which defined a child in utero as meaning a member of the
species Homo sapiens at any stage in development who is carried in the
womb, and that means a two-cell zygote.
Thirdly, the gentleman from New York seems to want to interject the
abortion debate in this bill. That is not the case at all, and I would
refer him to page 7 of the bill as reported that says nothing in this
section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of any person for
conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant
woman or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf has been
obtained or for which such consent is implied by law.
So what we are dealing with here is wanted children, children that
the mother has every intention of bringing to term to have, to give
birth and to give that child a nurturing and loving household and a
nurturing and loving upbringing. These are the children that we wish to
provide protection for under this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for
his leadership on this issue. I also want to commend and thank the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), the principal sponsor of this
bill, for her leadership.
Sadly, recent studies in Maryland, North Carolina and New York City
and Illinois indicate that homicide is the leading cause of death of
pregnant women in those parts of the country. Those homicides are often
inspired by the desire to kill a woman's unborn child. Yet due to gaps
in the Federal criminal law, an unborn child can be killed or injured
during the commission of a violent Federal crime without any legal
consequences.
These gaps are appalling to the American people. Recent polls have
shown that upwards of 80 percent of registered voters, including 69
percent of voters who consider themselves to be prochoice, believe that
prosecutors should be able to separately charge the violent attacker of
a pregnant woman that kills her unborn child. Yet today, for example,
if a man stalks his pregnant wife across State lines and attacks her,
injuring her but killing the unborn child, that man could not be
prosecuted under Federal law for the loss of the baby's life.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act fills this glaring gap in Federal
law with a simple expression of basic understanding, namely, that the
loss of an unborn child to an act of violence deserves separate
recognition under Federal law. This bill provides that if an unborn
child is injured or killed during the commission of crimes of violence
already defined under Federal law, prosecutors can bring two charges,
one on behalf of the mother, the other on behalf of the unborn victim.
H.R. 1997 recognizes that the loss of an unborn child at any stage of
development is a unique and separate loss both to society and to the
mother who carried and loved that child. This bill, for the first time
under Federal law, treats an unborn victim of violence as something
more than a torn spleen or a bruised appendix or other physical
injuries incurred during the course of a violent attack that might
warrant enhanced penalties but not separate charges under Federal law
now. H.R. 1997 treats such unborn victims with the respect and dignity
under the law that their loving mothers and the American people
rightfully demand for them.
We must all ask ourselves, is an injury to an unborn child the same
thing as a broken bone? If the answer is no, as I think we all know
that it is, then the only appropriate response is to treat harm to an
unborn victim as a distinct and separate offense under Federal law.
This legislation has been called merely symbolic by its opponents,
but I wonder how many women in America would view the loss of their
unborn child through violent means as merely symbolic. Certainly not
Tracy Marciniak, whose unborn child was murdered by her husband. She
told the Subcommittee on the Constitution, referring to the substitute
amendment which we will be dealing with later, ``Please don't tell me
that my son was not a real murder victim,'' and, ``Please remember
Zachariah's name and face'' when you vote on a substitute amendment
that refuses to allow a separate charge for the killing of a wanted,
unborn child.
Shiwona Pace, whose unborn child Heaven Sashay was brutally murdered
by three hired hitmen, has also testified that, ``It seems to me that
any Congressman who votes for the `one-victim' amendment,'' in other
words, the substitute, ``is really saying that nobody died that night.
And that is a lie.''
Indeed, because unborn victims are distinct victims, the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act is also referred to as Laci and Conner's Law,
for Laci and Conner Peterson, two recent victims of terrible violence.
Opponents of the legislation before us today claim it will open the
door to all manner of terrible imagined future legislation, but the
only door this legislation opens is the door to a distinct room in the
edifice of the Federal Code in which unborn victims of violence can be
granted the distinct respect they are owed. Just as expecting mothers
reserve space in their home for wanted and loved unborn children, we in
Congress should reserve for unborn victims of violence a distinct place
under the protective shield of criminal law by providing for a separate
offense when they are violently killed or injured. The American people
consider the murder of an unborn child distinctly offensive, and they
demand that the murder of an unborn child be a distinct offense under
Federal law, and I urge its passage.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman said a moment ago that in the
Innocent Child Protection Act of 2000 we made settled law the
personhood of the fetus. It is not correct. In the Innocent Child
Protection Act of 2000, we simply said that a pregnant woman could not
be executed, and we defined a pregnant woman as someone who had a child
in utero, and then defined, as the chairman said, the words ``child in
utero.''
It is not what we are talking about here. For the purpose of saying
you cannot execute a pregnant woman, we have defined what a pregnant
woman means. That is all that bill did.
This bill seeks to establish a fetus as a separate legal person by
giving it separate legal rights in order transparently to make it a
separate legal person within the meaning of the 14th amendment that
says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without
due process of law. That is exactly the opposite of what the Supreme
Court said when it said we have never held a fetus to be a person in
the full meaning of the term. This bill is an attempt to whittle away
at that term.
The distinguished chairman of the subcommittee says we have to
acknowledge the particularly heinous nature of the crime, and indeed,
we do. The Lofgren substitute acknowledges the assault on the fetus as
a separate crime to be separately punished, to be additionally
punished, but a separate crime against the woman because her interest
in carrying that pregnancy to term and bearing a healthy baby is
assaulted.

{time} 1045

It does not recognize it as a separate crime against a separate
person, which is the object of this bill and what we are debating, and
which is why this bill, despite the disclaimers of the proponents, is a
direct assault on Roe v. Wade, a direct assault on abortion, and if all
they are interested in is to make a separate crime when you assault a

[[Page H642]]

fetus, when you harm a fetus, then the Lofgren substitute is perfectly
adequate for that. But their aim is to damage the right to choose, and
that is the real purpose of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this terribly
misguided bill. The bill before us today would give a fetus the same
recognition as you or I for the first time in Federal law. Let me make
something perfectly clear. The loss of a pregnancy under any
circumstances is absolutely devastating to a woman and her family.
Those who injure or kill a pregnant woman should be severely punished,
and families should have the legal tools to have their loss recognized.
Instead of addressing the real issue at hand, the horrible pain for a
woman who loses a pregnancy to an act of violence, this bill sends a
message that women do not deserve to be safeguarded or valued in their
own right; that it is only through their fetuses that they are entitled
to any Federal protections against violence. This, in my judgment, is
the wrong approach. Of course the woman matters. She matters when the
baby is conceived, she matters when the baby is developing in utero,
and she matters when the child arrives in the world; yet this bill does
not make it a Federal crime to attack a pregnant woman. In fact, its
sponsors have explicitly rejected amendments to protect a woman herself
under Federal law.
The Lofgren substitute would do just that. It would severely punish
crimes against pregnant women without undermining Roe v. Wade. It gets
us to the same ends without the overtly political means.
If my colleagues want to crack down on criminals who attack pregnant
women, support the Lofgren substitute. If my colleagues want to protect
women from violence, let us fully fund the Violence Against Women Act.
Finally, if my colleagues are serious about protecting the unborn,
let us focus on giving babies the best start we can by promoting the
health of women throughout the entire pregnancy.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is not about shielding pregnant
women or fetuses from violent acts, it is and has always about been
undermining freedom of choice. Instead of finding new ways to revisit
the divisive abortion battle, I believe Americans want us to focus our
efforts on ways of providing women with access to prenatal care,
affordable contraception, health care and violence prevention.
If we truly want to protect women and their pregnancies from harm,
let us work together to enact legislation that deters and punishes
violence against women without unnecessarily engaging in the abortion
debate.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1997 and to support the
Lofgren substitute.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), the principal author of the bill.
(Ms. HART asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) and my subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Chabot), for their hard work on this issue throughout the time I
have spent in Congress over the last 3 years and throughout the time I
have been the principal sponsor of this legislation. They do have women
and families in mind, as I do and as the supporters of this bill do.
It is interesting rhetoric when it is claimed that prosecution of a
crime against a woman or an allegation against a perpetrator of a crime
against a woman is not happening. It is already against the law to
attack a woman and cause her injury or death. That should not be a
surprise to any of us. It is not, however, on the Federal level a crime
to attack a woman and cause injury or death to the unborn child as a
separate crime.
There are two victims in these kinds of crimes. That is so clear from
the Laci and Conner Peterson case. The family came to visit us and
asked that we name this bill after Laci and Conner Peterson in
remembrance of them. That family showed us what the real loss is. They
have lost a daughter, Laci Peterson, and their grandson Conner. That
cannot be restored by enhancing the penalty for the attack against Laci
Peterson. It cannot be restored at all; but the least we can do as
lawmakers is recognize the loss to the family. It is shocking to me
that anyone would support a substitute to the legislation that
recognizes what families who have gone through this tragedy have asked
us to do.
Studies have shown, unfortunately, that domestic violence against
pregnant women is prevalent, that fully one-quarter of women who are
pregnant who die are victims of homicide. These families are crushed
when this happens. They lose the woman, and they lose the hope of the
child for the future.
This bill is all about recognition of a family's loss. It is about
prosecution of a terrible crime. This bill is about making sure that we
recognize what is really happening in these kinds of crimes. Numerous
reports show us that the motivation behind a crime against many of
these pregnant women is the fact that she is pregnant, the fact that
she has chosen to carry a child makes someone angry, and it makes
someone angry enough to attack her and her unborn child.
Mr. Speaker, we recognize unborn children with inheritance rights.
This Congress recognized unborn children enough to prevent the
execution of a pregnant woman in prison. It is about time we recognize
for that family who has suffered a grave loss a crime against that
woman and her unborn child with a two-victim bill such as this. I
encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1997.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
It is actually insulting and certainly annoying that there is some
sort of accusation that those of us who think that the substitute is
preferable do not care about women and do not care about the babies
that they are carrying. As a mother, as a grandmother of four children,
we have to recognize this bill for what it is. If we want to go after
protecting pregnant women, we ought to go after protecting pregnant
women, not about threatening to take away their right to choose, which
this is a thinly veiled effort to do because we are trying to create a
special status of human being, of a fetus, of an unborn child. While I
kind of admire the strategy, it does not get to the heart of this
issue.
The proponents say we have to have this bill to protect pregnant
women from violence, but the truth is this bill does not even address
crimes committed against the woman at all, it only addresses the new
crime created in this bill, which is a crime against a zygote, an
embryo, a fetus. Furthermore, this bill would not even apply to the
tragic Laci Peterson, as we understand the facts of the case, and as is
true in the vast majority of domestic violence cases. Those crimes are
covered by State law and not Federal law.
H.R. 1997 only touches on few and rare instances when pregnant women
could be harmed by someone committing a Federal crime. The undisputed
aim of this bill is to move forward a calculated antichoice agenda in
which embryos and fetuses are codified into law as humans with all of
the human rights afforded people in our society. This would bring us
one step closer to overturning Roe v. Wade and taking away a woman's
constitutional right to choose.
Instead, if we truly care about protecting pregnant women from
violence and creating stiffer penalties for those who harm pregnant
women, we should pass the substitute to this bill, known as the
Motherhood Protection Act. The substitute recognizes that the pregnant
woman is a victim when she is assaulted, instead of making the fetus
distinct and separate from the woman, which anybody who is pregnant or
has been pregnant knows is really not when you are carrying that child.
The substitute classifies assault against her and assault on her
pregnancy as two crimes, both crimes against the woman. Unlike H.R.
1997, the substitute gets to the heart of the matter: protecting
pregnant women from violence.

[[Page H643]]

I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1997 and yes on the
substitute amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) yielding me this time, and I profoundly
appreciate the work of the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) on
this issue, as well as the work of the chairman and the subcommittee
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
I urge Members to vote against the Lofgren substitute amendment. At
issue today is whether there is one victim or two. When a pregnant
woman is murdered, there are two victims. When a pregnant woman is
injured and her baby dies, the law must recognize that and punish her
violent attacker.
Pregnant women deserve the full protection of our laws. When Laci
Peterson and Conner Peterson were killed, there were two victims. This
substitute treats Laci's child as if he never existed. Conner did
exist. Laci and her family were looking forward to his birth. If we
allow Federal law to recognize only one victim, we are guilty of
covering up for the criminal who robs an expectant mother and in other
cases the father and the rest of the family of their baby. Grieving
family members need to know that criminals will pay the full price for
killing their son or daughter and that society recognizes their loss.
No woman should ever be told she has lost nothing when she loses her
unborn child to a brutal attacker. Women deserve better than this. We
should recognize her injury, and we should pursue justice.
Roe v. Wade may, and I pray temporarily, provide for a woman to
decide temporarily the fate of her unborn child, but this does not
affect the Roe v. Wade decision. What we are proposing is someone else
stepping into the shoes of the mother. I urge Members to vote for Laci
and Conner's law, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and I thank the
sponsors of this bill, the chairman of the committee, and the folks who
have worked so hard.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Iowa just hit the nail on the head.
He said the purpose of this bill is to recognize that there are two
victims, two people involved in this. That is exactly the point of this
bill, and that is exactly why we should not pass this bill without the
Lofgren substitute. I am glad the previous speaker and some of the
other speakers on the other side stripped away the false rhetoric on
this bill. This bill is not about punishing an assault on a fetus
separately; the substitute as well as the bill does that. This is not
about giving it an additional punishment; the substitute as well as the
bill does that.
This is about saying that there are two victims, not one victim; that
the fetus or the embryo or the zygote, depending on the status of the
pregnancy, is a separate legal person. That is the point of the bill.
That is why we must have the substitute, why we cannot agree to the
bill, because the whole point of the bill is to establish legally
separate fetal personhood, which would undermine the entire rationale
of Roe v. Wade and undermine a woman's right to choose, because if a
fetus is a separate legal person, how can she choose to terminate the
pregnancy?
This is revolutionary notion going way back to Biblical law. If we
look at the original Five Books of Moses, it says very plainly if you
assault a woman and she dies, you should be put to death. And if you
assault a woman and she miscarries, you shall pay her monetary
compensation. In other words, by killing the fetus, you have damaged an
interest of the woman for which she is due compensation, but you have
not committed murder as you have if you kill the born person, the
woman.
So we have never in our history recognized a fetus as a separate
legal person. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade specifically says we
have never recognized a fetus as a separate person.

{time} 1100

If we were to do so, then we would get into the 14th amendment
question that you cannot deprive a person of life, or liberty or
process, without due process of law; and that is the purpose of this
bill. That is the purpose of similar bills in the State legislatures, I
suspect, to give underpinning to a future Supreme Court majority to say
that we recognize a fetus as a person within the meaning of the 14th
amendment and, therefore, abortion is murder and, therefore, Roe v.
Wade is overruled and, therefore, States have no right to legalize
murder and you would need a constitutional amendment to permit
abortions in this country.
That is the real point of this bill. And strip away all the
disingenuous rhetoric about everything else, because everything else we
agree on. We agree that there ought to be an additional penalty if you
harm the fetus when you assault a woman. We agree that it should be a
separate additional crime. The only question here between the bill and
the substitute is should the separate additional crime for harming the
fetus be a crime against the woman as we say, an additional separate
crime against a woman deserving an additional separate penalty? Or
should it be an additional crime against a second person, the fetus
being recognized as a person?
That is the issue in this bill and this substitute. To say that it is
not and to quarry the abortion debate is quite simply disingenuous.
That is why the bill was introduced. That is why they are pushing it.
It is why we are opposing it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, let us get back to the Innocent Child Protection Act,
which passed the House unanimously on July 25, 2000. The purpose of
that bill, which is law today, was to prevent the killing of a child in
utero because of the mother's crimes causing the death penalty to be
imposed. There the legislation, again which was signed into law,
defined the child in utero as a human being at any stage of development
who is carried in the womb. So that we decided and we made law 3\1/2\
years ago when the Innocent Child Protection Act was passed.
I would note that the three Members on the other side of the aisle
who have spoken against the current bill all voted in favor of the
Innocent Child Protection Act and the definition that I have just
repeated for, I believe, the third time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, and I rise
in strong support of H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and
in strong opposition to the single-victim substitute.
Let me take my time to try to put a little face on this issue and a
human perspective. I want to call my colleagues' attention to the
poster to my left. This is a picture of my grandchildren. My
granddaughters, Ali and Hannah, are now 6 years old. They were born at
26 weeks, each weighing 1 pound 12 ounces. Thank God their brother,
little Hank, who is 3 years old, has two precious siblings. My daughter
and son-in-law have three precious children. My wife, Billie, and I are
very proud grandparents.
As a physician, I know that Laci Peterson at 8\1/2\ months pregnant,
little Conner probably weighed three times as much as my granddaughters
did at their birth, weighing 1 pound 12 ounces. A strategically
directed blow to her abdomen, or any woman's abdomen, at 8 months
pregnant could result in just a minor bruise, a contusion to the
mother, yet the death of the child, a child that within weeks would
have been born fully well.
Yet in this substitute amendment, what would happen? Instead of the
perpetrator of this crime getting slapped on the wrist, they would get
slapped on both wrists. Yet that child would be dead, and that family
would be robbed of a life. I think it is utterly ridiculous.
They keep saying that we do not care about the mother. There are laws
to protect the mother against violence that exist, but we have got
another victim in these crimes and this puts a human face on it. I ask
my colleagues to reject the substitute amendment and support the bill,
H.R. 1997.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H644]]

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act. I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for her
leadership on this important issue.
Poll after poll show that the vast majority of Americans believe that
if someone attacks or murders a pregnant woman and kills her unborn
child, then the criminal should be charged with two separate crimes.
Sixty-nine percent of registered voters who call themselves pro-choice
also agree that violent thugs should be charged with two offenses if
they kill a woman's unborn child during the commission of a brutal
crime.
The widespread support by the American people is reflected here in
the House of Representatives where we have passed this legislation
twice before, each time by impressive margins, and each time with both
parties working together. As of today, 29 State legislatures have
overwhelmingly passed their own laws recognizing two victims in a
violent crime against a pregnant woman. This number is growing with
each passing day.
I would like to read to my colleague from the Old Testament. He
mentioned that. Exodus 21:22-23. I could also go to the Talmud. It is
also observed in the Talmud the same thing that is in the Old
Testament, namely, ``If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so
that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be
surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him;
and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any mischief follow,
then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand
for hand, foot for foot.''
I think it is clear that if the mischief includes the death of the
embryo, of the live human being in the womb, then it is eye for eye,
tooth for tooth. I urge the passage of this bill.

I. Introduction

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the ``Unborn Victims of
Violence Act.''

II. Broad Public Support of H.R. 1997

It's always satisfying when we get to debate and vote on legislation
that has such broad, bipartisan support across the country.
How broad is this support? Poll after poll show that the vast
majority of Americans believe that if someone attacks or murders a
pregnant woman, and kills her unborn child, then that criminal should
be charged with two separate crimes.
How bipartisan is that support? 69% of registered voters who call
themselves ``pro-choice'' also agree that violent thugs should be
charged with two offenses if they kill a woman's unborn child during
the commission of a brutal crime.
This widespread support by the American people has been reflected
here in the House of Representatives, where we have passed this
legislation twice before, each time by impressive margins, and each
time with both parties working together.
And as of today, 29 state legislatures have overwhelmingly passed
their own laws recognizing two victims in a violent crime against a
pregnant woman.
This number is growing with each passing day.

III. Legal and Academic Support for H.R. 1997

In the academic and legal world, there is a consensus that these
efforts will strengthen our criminal justice system, and agreement that
this legislation is perfectly constitutional.
In terms of our criminal justice system, it's clear that this law
will serve as a deterrent to future attacks on women of childbearing
age.
This is important because in Maryland, New York and Illinois,
homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women.
According to a recent study, up to 324,000 pregnant women will
experience physical violence in the United States this year.
If we join those 29 states in enacting this legislation, we are
telling potential attackers that they will face two times the
punishment for hurting a pregnant woman.
Would-be attackers need to know that they could be charged with the
murder of an unborn child if they attack his mother.
By creating legal consequences for killing an unborn against her
mother's will, the law will provide greater protection for women from
crimes of violence.
Indeed, in 1990, the Supreme Court of Minnesota said, in upholding
the conviction of a man with two counts of murder, that ``The
possibility that a female homicide victim of child-bearing age may be
pregnant is a possibility that an assaulter may not safely exclude.''
From an academic point of view, scholars are in agreement that laws
protecting unborn children from violence are constitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to strike down Missouri's unborn
victims of violence law because it ``does not by its terms regulate
abortion.''
Every single unborn victims law passed by state legislatures that has
been challenged in court has been upheld.
A large number of pro-choice scholars concede that this bill will not
infringe upon anyone's rights.

IV. Moral Reasons to Support H.R. 1997

Not only does this legislation make sense from a legal point of view,
it's also compassionate.
It's compassionate because we are saying to these women and their
families, ``You have intrinsic worth, and your unborn baby's life had
meaning, too.''
No woman should ever be told she lost nothing when she loses her
child to a brutal attacker. Women deserve better than this.
Even the Bible has something to say about violence against pregnant
women. Exodus 21:21-23 tells how if a woman is harmed and her baby is
uninjured, then the punishment is only for what happened to the woman.
But if a woman is harmed and her unborn child subsequently dies, then
the attacker ``shalt give life for life.''

Conclusion

As I've said, it's good when we get to take up an issue on which the
vast majority of Americans agree.
But what's most important is that what we are doing today is the
right thing to do.
It's time to make the law apply to federal jurisdiction, so that if a
man stalks his pregnant wife across state lines and attacks her, or
commits any other federal crime, injuring her and killing their unborn
child, that man can be prosecuted under federal law for the loss of the
baby's life.
Passage of ``Laci and Conner's'' law is a win-win situation on every
level--for the American people, for our criminal justice and legal
systems, and for the protection of pregnant women and their unborn
children.
The only losers with this bill are the cowardly criminals who would
dare attack a pregnant woman. They'll be getting what they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, it's time to do the right thing and pass the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida mentions various polling data
that large majorities of people who are polled say that someone who
attacks the woman and harms the fetus, that there are two separate
crimes here. There is no dispute on that point. We agree with that.
There are two separate crimes. The substitute as well as the bill in
chief make it two separate crimes. That is not at issue. What is at
issue is who is the victim. The substitute says it is a separate crime
against the woman. Two crimes, two punishments for separate crimes
against the same victim. The bill says two victims. That is the
distinction here. Are there two crimes? Yes, we say. Yes, they say. Are
there two victims? Yes, they say from a legal point of view. No, we
say, she is the victim of a second crime because the law does not
recognize the fetus as a full person.
That is what this bill seeks to do. So it is not a question of two
separate slaps on the wrist. We ought to punish the crime severely. The
substitute punishes the crime as severely, in some cases more severely
than does the bill. The question is do you recognize one victim or two
victims, because there are legal consequences, there are juridical
consequences, there are consequences of undermining Roe v. Wade and the
right to choose based on whether you say this fetus is a person for
legal purposes or simply that you say the woman is a victim twice and
we will punish it appropriately. That is the question, not whether
there are two crimes.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
support for H.R. 1997 and to oppose any substitute that would nullify
its intent.
H.R. 1997 protects unborn children whose mothers are physically
assaulted or killed in the commission of a Federal crime. The majority
of States currently recognize prenatal injury or death resulting from
violence inflicted on the mother as a crime against two victims. H.R.
1997 allows the Federal Government to similarly recognize this dual
crime when it occurs within their jurisdiction and prosecute
accordingly.
On January 7 of this year, 18-year-old Ashley Lyons and her unborn
son,

[[Page H645]]

Landon, were murdered in Scott County, Kentucky. Carol Lyons, Ashley's
mother and Landon's grandmother 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.''
Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks ago, the Kentucky State House correctly approved
legislation to redress single victim prosecution. I urge my colleagues
in this Federal body in the name of unborn victims like Landon Lyons to
protect unborn victims of violence by voting in favor of this bill.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support
of H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I commend those who
have come before me in previous years for their work, and I commend the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for her work now in bringing this issue
to the floor.
Violence against a woman who is pregnant with an unborn child is a
hideous and tragic act that must be punished accordingly. To my left
here is a photograph, this is the first time I have seen this
photograph recently, of Tracy Marciniak and her little baby. I would
challenge anyone who knows the story, that she was beaten, she survived
the beating but her little baby did not. I would challenge anyone from
the other side of the aisle who would look at this photograph and say
that this is a fetus in her arms. No, I would say this is her baby in
her arms. And when a baby, born or unborn, is taken away from her
mother, the offender must be punished.
This is commonsense legislation. Once it is passed, it will work to
deter violence against women and their unborn children as well. As has
been stated by other people already, one of the leading causes of
violence and death to women in many States is in fact homicide of
pregnant women.
I would urge all Members of good faith on both sides of the aisle to
do what is right for society, right for women, and right for the
innocent victims in this Nation and vote in favor of this legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the committee.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the opportunity to
speak in strong support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. As a
member of the Committee on the Judiciary, there are many times that we
deal with issues that are along the fault lines of the cultural debate;
and I am a pro-life Member of Congress, and I do not apologize for
that. But I rise today in support of what has come to be known as Laci
and Conner's Law to say from my heart that this is not about abortion.
This is not about the thorny issues that surround the debate over a
woman's right to choose or the right to life; but, rather, this is
simply a law about justice.
The reality is that fetal homicide laws, which is a characterization
of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, are already the law in 29 States
in the United States of America. And what Congress seeks to do today,
with the strong leadership of the chairman of the committee and the
authorship of the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, is, in effect, to have
Federal law catch up with those 29 State laws.

{time} 1115

That this is not about abortion is specifically stated in the law
itself that provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a
woman has consented to any act of a mother herself, legal or illegal,
or to any form of medical treatment. It is not about abortion or a
cultural debate. It is about justice.
And with regard to those who would argue for the view that when a
woman is attacked and both she and her unborn child are injured that
there is only one victim, I close citing the words of the mother of
Laci Peterson and the grandmother of Conner Peterson, who speaks more
eloquently and more powerfully than any of us can here today:
``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.''
I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I strongly
support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from New York for yielding me this time, and I respect
greatly my colleagues on a very tough and emotional debate.
Yesterday, I rose on the floor of the House to indicate that I do not
think one will find any division, any schism in this House on the value
and the need for the protection of all Americans, all of us within the
boundaries of this Nation against violent and horrific acts. And
certainly the murder and the violent assault and action that would
injure anyone in this country deserves the full force of the law, and I
stand here today supporting that concept. So I would argue vigorously
that if one does the crime, they need to pay the time.
It is interesting that we come to the floor today just a few days shy
of the tragedy of the Peterson family and the beginning of that trial
in California. So it would seem that we urgently need to move forward
because of that tragedy. It is interesting to note that as that trial
is proceeding, those prosecutors feel fully confident of their case, as
I am sure the defense of theirs, but they are moving forward to protect
the victims of that tragic crime. So it begs the question as today as
to why this body would choose to ignore and reject standing law that
has allowed a woman to choose now for more than 2 decades under the Roe
v. Wade case and why under H.R. 1997 it is now represented as a
necessary legislative act to protect a pregnant woman. I cannot imagine
why the substitute that we have now crafted, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) so studiously designed, that in actuality
creates a separate Federal criminal offense for assaulting a pregnant
woman resulting in injury or termination of a pregnancy without
entangling the issue in the question of choice.
We have come to this floor on many occasions in a side-winding way to
undermine the law of this law. One may not agree with Roe v. Wade, but
the determination is that a woman now in this Nation has the right to
choose on the basis with her engagement with her family, engagement
with her spiritual leader, and her personal needs. We are responsible
for abiding by the law, and for my colleagues who continue to chip away
at the rights of physicians to make a determination on a woman's health
when it is necessary to abort a fetus so that that woman can be
preserved to recreate again, here we go again with an attempt now to
suggest that an unborn child or fetus is not protected when a tragedy
occurs by the laws of this land.
We have an alternative. We have a substitute that creates a separate
offense so that we do not criminalize the doctor or the mother when
there is a need and a necessity to choose to terminate a pregnancy.
Why do we go over this over and over again? Where is the respect for
women who have asked to make an independent choice? Those who choose
not to abort, we respect that decision. Those who for personal reasons
make the choice, the law stands on their side. And I will not come to
this floor to participate in frivolity, and it does not make sense that
we would come to the floor of the House and suggest not only to our
colleagues but to the American people that there is no relief when
there is an attack on a woman that is pregnant.
For in this bill, H.R. 1997, it is clearly focused at criminalizing
the acts of

[[Page H646]]

women if they decide to choose to terminate a pregnancy. And why do I
say that? Because what the bill does is it recognizes a member of the
species homo sapiens at all stages of development as a victim of crime
from conception to birth. This attempts to afford 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.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is what our angst is with this
misrepresentation. This is not to ensure that a pregnant woman who
would be violently attacked and may lose her life and that of the child
that she may be carrying be protected, but it is to suggest that one
may do anything that may be a violent act against that particular
embryo that that woman is carrying, and that means that it is
subjecting a woman to possible criminal acts for a choice that she may
make, one to save her life or to provide for her health.
This substitute that we are promoting tells the real truth, and the
real truth is that we can provide a separate offense to protect against
that terrible and heinous act for assaulting a pregnant woman resulting
in an injury or termination and we can create an offense that protects
pregnant woman and punishes violence resulting in injury or
terminations of a pregnancy without conflicting with the core
principles of Roe v. Wade.
I only ask my colleagues that there are few occasions where we may
seek reason and there are few occasions where we might understand that
we are not here for ourselves, but for the people we represent. The law
of the land is Roe v. Wade. I will join any Member to protect against
violence of pregnant women; but I cannot stand here while legislation
goes through this House, and, unfortunately, it may pass today, that in
any way disregards the standing law of the land and represents to the
American people that we have no other alternatives but to undermine Roe
v. Wade. A woman has a right to choose or choose not. It is not my
intention to promote any position other than to say that this body must
follow the law.
I ask my colleagues to oppose this particular legislation, the
underlying legislation of H.R. 1997, and support the Lofgren
substitute; and I ask most of all that we abide by the Constitution and
respect the laws of this land so that the American people can know the
truth and that women in this Nation can truly be protected.
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.
Violence against women, especially pregnant women, is unacceptable
and should be punished. I, along with the pro-choice community, are
dedicated to preserving a woman's right to have a family when she
chooses--and any criminal act that robs her of a hoped-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 (UVVA), 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.

what uvva does

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 in Roe versus Wade that fetuses are not persons within the
meaning of the fourteenth 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.
We have States 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 in 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.

better alternatives

I am also here today to support Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren's
substitute, the ``Motherhood Protection Act'' (MPA). This is a crime
bill that designed to protect pregnant women from violence. MPA
embodies many of the same principles that I offered as amendments in
the House Judiciary Committee, where this bill 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 by which the drafters of this bill have used to achieve its end.
Like MPA, all my offered amendments referred to changing language in
the bill, focusing on the pregnant mother instead of the fetus.

The MPA 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.
MPA 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.
This bill fails to address the very real need for strong Federal
legislation to prevent and punish violent crimes against women. Nearly
one in every three adult women experiences at least one physical
assault by a partner during adulthood.
Congress can protect pregnant women from violence without resorting
to controversial bills like Unborn Victims of Violence that undermine
Roe v. Wade. We must take strong 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.
While I am pleased to see the Bush administration taking an active
interest in women and children, I hope they will see their goals can be
met in other areas. I would like to see the Bush administration focus
their efforts on caring for a pregnant woman by providing her decent
medical care. I hope the Bush administration ensures more happy
pregnancies and births, both with proper family planning and prenatal
care. I call on the Bush administration to have to care for the
millions of children already living and breathing in our country, but
go to school in overcrowded classrooms and dilapidated buildings.
We have a wide range of programs in place to help woman and children.
I would like my colleagues to spend more time encouraging and funding
these, rather than once again undermining a woman's attempt to choose.
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 Planning Parenthood
Federation of America, oppose this legislation. Congress should adopt a
more reasoned approach that would protect all women from violence.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the women who are the victims of the violence that has
caused death or harm to their babies have already made their choice,
and their choice was to carry their babies to term and to give birth
and to raise those children in hopefully a nurturing and loving
household. To say that this legislation takes away the choice of a
woman is just flat-out wrong. Maybe some people disagree with the
choice that that woman made, but that is a personal choice; and we
ought to recognize that this legislation respects that personal choice.
And then to hear that this legislation is an assault on the
Constitution is completely missing the point. The Supreme Court has
consistently upheld fetal homicide laws, two-victim crime laws. The
Webster case, I think, was the most emphatic upholding of that, and
that is a Supreme Court that has also consistently refused to modify
Roe v. Wade or to overrule it. So the Court has been able to make a
distinction which apparently some of the Members on the other side of
this argument have not been able to make, that fetal homicide laws are
constitutional, two-victim crime laws are legal as well.
Now, I hope that more Members would have been able to hear the
arguments that were advanced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey),

[[Page H647]]

who was an obstetrician by profession before he was elected to
Congress. He has said that in some instances a minor bruise on the
abdomen of a pregnant woman can result in the death of the child. If
all that someone can be prosecuted for is that minor bruise, then the
full force of the law against someone who has caused the death of
another would not be able to be imposed against that defendant without
a two-victim bill. And that is why two victims is so important. It is
important, it is constitutional; but, most of all, it respects the
right of the women who have decided that they do not want an abortion,
that they want to give birth, and they want to raise the child with all
the love that a newborn child deserves.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
Of course, as has been said on numerous occasions this morning, we
are considering the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I joined 136
Members of this body to cosponsor this legislation, and I want to
commend the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) for her sponsoring
this legislation this morning. I do believe the time has come for the
House to pass this legislation again and help ensure that it is signed
into law. And again, as has been stated this morning, this legislation
takes an important step that recognizing that violence against an
unborn child, against the will of a mother, can be prosecuted in the
Federal courts.
This law is very simple. It would establish that if an unborn child
is injured or killed during the commission of an already defined
Federal crime of violence, then the assailant may be charged with a
second offense on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child. This
bill recognizes an unborn child as a separate victim in the eyes of the
Federal law.
I have supported this law previously; but as I stand here today, the
bill takes on a little bit different meaning. My wife, Caroline, is due
to give birth on Monday in Alabama to our second child; and looking at
her and feeling the baby move and seeing the sonograms, I do not think
there is a shadow of a doubt that the child is a child. This child
certainly deserves the full protection of the law.
Caroline reminded me just a few weeks ago that she and Laci were at
about the same stage of their pregnancies during the Christmas
holidays, and of course that is when she was killed during that time.
So it, like I said, takes on a special meaning not only for me but also
for my wife, Caroline. But if something should happen to any mother or
to any child who is in the womb and they become a victim of a crime, I
think the American people would want to see justice on behalf of both
individuals, the mother and the child.
So I respectfully ask my colleagues this morning to send a strong
message to the Senate and to the President that our goal is to protect
the most vulnerable and the most innocent among us.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman, first of all, I congratulate
him for endorsing the right to choose. But second of all, he talked
about the woman who has chosen to bear her pregnancy to term, to have a
child, and an assault which destroys her fetus or damages her fetus is
an assault on her right to choose, and indeed it is. He is entirely
right. That is why the substitute makes the assault on her fetus a
separate crime with a separate penalty against her because it is indeed
an assault on her right to choose to carry that pregnancy to term, and
she is the damaged party because she has lost her right to carry the
pregnancy to term. She has lost her right to bear a child, and that is
why in the substitute we make it an additional crime against her.

{time} 1130

The bill, of course, makes it a separate crime against the fetus, and
that is the question here.
Also, the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) quoted
Exodus 21:22. He said it was 22:22, but it is 21:22. He misquoted what
it said. Before I read it, let me be very clear: I did not raise this
reference to the Bible because I think we ought to enact Biblical or
religious law in this Chamber, far from it, but simply to show it has
always been regarded, our civilization generally has regarded back to
Biblical times the fetus as not having the status of a separate person.
Exodus 21:22 reads as follows: ``If men strive and hurt a woman with
child so that her fruit depart from her,'' in other words, she has a
miscarriage, they cause the destruction of the fetus, ``and yet no
mischief follow, he shall be surely punished and he shall pay as the
judges determine,'' monetary compensation. ``And if any mischief
follow, then they shall give life for life.''
Now, I am not sure what the Bible means by ``mischief.'' I have an
interpretation here from a rabbinical source that says it means if she
dies.
But, in any event, if she does not die, if mischief does not follow,
if she has a miscarriage, monetary compensation. It is only when
mischief follows, when she dies, that he is guilty of a capital crime.
That is precisely because at least the Bible did not consider the fetus
to be a person for whose killing it is a capital crime, as killing a
born person is.
Again, I cite this not because we are bound in enacting civil law to
enact Biblical law, we are not, obviously, but simply to show, as I
mentioned earlier, this bill, by trying to establish the fetus as a
separate person for legal purposes, is a radical departure not only
from Anglo-American legal traditions, but from all of Western legal
traditions going way back to the Bible.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership
on this issue and so many others. I really rise in strong opposition to
this bill and in support of the Lofgren amendment.
In a country in which up to two-thirds of battered women are turned
away from shelters for lack of space, in no way does this bill combat
domestic violence. But no one should be naive enough to think that this
bill has anything to do with domestic violence. Instead, this is
another step down the slippery slope toward granting personage to
fetuses. This sets up an untenable situation in which a fetus' rights
and interests are at odds with its mother.
To make the fetus a person would inject a layer of legal
complexibility that would make every pregnant woman's ordinary
decisions perilous, opening her medical and other choices to second-
guessing liability or even criminal charges. This bill criminalizes
actions that can occur at the very earliest phases of pregnancy, making
every miscarriage subject to an investigation.
Roughly 20 to 25 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage.
Usually there is a genetic reason, but sometimes there is another
cause. Studies show that miscarriages can occur because of excessive
coffee drinking, smoking, exposure to chemicals, illness, stress or
trauma during an accident. Since culpability accrues whether the
perpetrator knows the woman is pregnant or not, a wide variety of
relatively innocent actions could lead to charges.
If someone comes to work, for example, with German measles, knowing
that they could infect a fellow worker, could they be guilty of
manslaughter? Will Starbucks have to post signs advising pregnant women
that they cannot buy more than two cups of coffee per day? Will car
manufacturers face imprisonment for miscarriages caused by steering
wheels, seat belts or air bags? Will airlines face criminal charges if
they permit pregnant women to fly? Will bodega owners be charged for
selling pregnant women cigarettes?
If this bill is really about violence against pregnant women, then we
should pass the Lofgren amendment and increase penalties against people
who harm a pregnant woman. Let us step off the slippery slope and
reserve personage to the born.
This bill is also another chipping away at a woman's right to choose.
This body recently passed the so-called partial-birth abortion ban,
which ignored the health and life of a woman. Now this bill before us
today, once again, ignores the health and life of a woman.

[[Page H648]]

I have kept a scorecard of antichoice actions since the Republican
majority took over in 1995. If this bill passes today, it will mark the
202nd action against a woman's right to choose, which is exactly what
this bill is intended to do. We heard it straight from Senator Hatch's
mouth last July when he commented on this bill: ``They say it
undermines abortion rights. It does. But that is irrelevant.''
It is insulting that the authors of this legislation would use
violence against women as a vehicle to attack a woman's right to
choose.
Let me say it again, this bill does nothing to address the violence
against women, but the Lofgren substitute does. The Lofgren substitute
would severely punish crimes against pregnant women without tangling
juries and prosecutors in the abortion debate. It creates a separate
Federal offense for crimes against pregnant women and carries penalties
of 20 years in prison to a maximum life sentence for causing
termination of a woman's pregnancy. The Lofgren amendment protects
pregnant women without limiting their very basic rights and without
defining the Constitution to establish fetal personage.
Please vote in favor of the Lofgren amendment, which will be up
shortly, and no to this underlying bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Few people know that homicide is
the leading cause of death of pregnant women in this country. Thousands
more expectant mothers will experience physical violence during their
pregnancy each year. When a pregnant woman is harmed, so is her child.
Under these circumstances, it only makes sense that a criminal should
be prosecuted for harming two innocent lives rather than one. In fact,
29 States, including my State of Minnesota, have laws that protect
unborn children during some stage of development. If the mother is not
killed in an attack, but the unborn child is, clearly that attacker is
responsible for the unborn child's death. However, in the eyes of the
law, nobody died, and the most an attacker can be charged with is
assault.
This must be changed. Even in the highly publicized tragedy involving
Laci and Conner Peterson, the national media rightly recognized that
there were clearly two victims. But if this were a Federal case, only
one victim would be recognized.
The opponents of this bill have wrongly characterized this bill and
tried to give credence to their one-victim alternative. But I would
like to bring to you what the mother of Laci Peterson had to say:
``Please understand how adoption of such a single-victim proposal
would be a painful blow to those like me 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; 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.''
That comes from Laci's mother, from Conner's grandmother. This is
something that 84 percent of Americans support. This is something that
this House has passed twice. The President supports it. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise also in strong opposition to the so-called
Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I am extremely disappointed that the
issue of violence against women is being manipulated into a political
tug of war.
The bill recognizes for the first time a fetus as a person with
rights separate and equal to that of a woman. Nearly one in every three
adult women experience at least one physical assault by someone that
she knows, a partner in many cases.
There is no doubt that acts of violence against women, especially
pregnant women, are tragic and should be punished to the full extent of
the law. However, we must institute legislation that does not erode the
legal foundation of a woman's right to choose as a condition of
protection against violence. We must support legislation that truly
addresses harm to pregnant women and domestic violence.
The Democratic substitute being offered today by Lofgren, the
Motherhood Protection Act, would create a separate Federal criminal
offense for harm to a pregnant woman, instead of recognizing the fetus
as a separate legal person. Recognizing the real issue at hand, harm to
a pregnant woman, must not be exploited to further a long-standing
political agenda.
I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1997, and support the
Lofgren substitute.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this being February,
many of us in our districts attended various fund-raisers for domestic
violence shelters, and most of the titles of the funds-raisers that I
attended this month were ``Love Does Not Have to Hurt.''
We need to have some Federal sentencing guidelines, because they
currently fail to adequately cover the death or injury of an unborn
child. For example, if a woman survives an attack but loses her unborn
child, current law says that a murder has not taken place. Federal law
does not recognize the death of Laci Peterson and her son Conner as a
double murder.
Many times the intended target is the unborn baby itself. Failing to
classify this as a murder defies reasonable notions of justice.
We hear a lot of debate about is this really related to the abortion
issue? The debate over this legislation has been twisted by some into a
debate over abortion. However, the abortion debate is really over a
woman's right to choose.
This legislation affirms a woman's right to choose by punishing the
criminal that has robbed her not only of her choice, but also of her
child. Nothing in the Roe v. Wade decision prevents Congress from
recognizing lives of the unborn children outside the parameters of the
right to an abortion.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the original provisions of
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act because they recognize clearly what
most Americans back in our districts feel, that violence against an
unborn child is a crime just as heinous as the attack on its mother.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1997,
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
Let us be clear: This bill is nothing more than an attack on a
woman's right to choose. By defining the phrase ``child in utero'' to
include any member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of
development who is carried in the woman, this bill provides protections
for an embryo or fetus, regardless of the stage of development, from
conception to birth. By establishing this fetal personhood in this
manner, this bill establishes a legal framework to attack a woman's
right to choose as guaranteed by the Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade
decision.
This bill forges new ground in attempting to recognize embryos and
fetuses at all stages of development as persons with the same legal
status as the mother. In fact, this 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, and this marks a major
departure from existing law and threatens the foundations of the right
to choose.
We all agree that every time a criminal causes the injury or death of
a pregnant woman through violence, it is a tragedy.

{time} 1145

But we must also acknowledge that an attack against an unborn child
is necessarily an attack against a pregnant woman. Unfortunately,
rather than supporting tougher laws against domestic violence, sexual
assault and battery, we are instead debating a bill that does not even
recognize the harm to a pregnant woman.

[[Page H649]]

During the debate, I have heard some Members talk about stories they
have heard from people they have met. I remember in Wisconsin hearing
testimony of a personal story of a woman who was beaten by her spouse
when pregnant and lost her child. She was also beaten right after she
first got married and beaten before her pregnancy, and beaten in the
early stages of her pregnancy. If we had taken a tough enough approach
to violence against women, the violence would not have progressed so
far.
I have long been a supporter of the Violence Against Women Act, which
expands protections for women against these callous acts of violence. I
believe we would be much better served by laws to protect women,
pregnant or not, from violence, instead of establishing an entirely new
framework to protect fetal rights.
By switching the focus of these crimes, we are diverting attention
from the victimized women, and this is not a step forward in the fight
against domestic violence.
I urge my colleagues to vote against these bills and then work
together to do proactive legislation to better attack violence against
women.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act and to oppose the Democratic amendment.
H.R. 1997 would state that when a violent criminal act is committed
against a pregnant woman, and that act results in the death of the
baby, the criminal will be guilty of a second offense.
What this debate comes down to is personhood, according to a well-
known liberal activist group. People for the American Way, a group
opposing this bill, stated, ``Unlike the underlying bill, however, the
pro-choice Lofgren substitute would not threaten Roe by recognizing the
embryo or fetus as a separate, legal `person.' '' That is correct.
Today in the House, we declare that criminal acts committed against
pregnant mothers are crimes against two persons. What else could it be?
Human beings take different forms throughout life, but they never
lose their humanness, their humanity. A baby in the womb will be born a
person. A newborn, although it cannot fend for itself, is a person. An
87-year-old that shuffles slowly along is still a person.
Mr. Speaker, when there are two victims, there should be two crimes.
I urge the House to pass H.R. 1997.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill, and I question
how this body could even consider a proposal as dishonest as this one.
This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a proposal to undermine
reproductive rights dressed up as a bill to punish violent crimes
against women.
We have really important issues that we should be considering, Mr.
Speaker, rather than legislation that will undermine a woman's right to
choose. We should be focusing this time today on policies that ensure
every woman has a healthy pregnancy. We should promote solutions to the
tragedy of domestic violence and the many other heinous offenses
against women.
If antichoice forces would like to debate whether or not a woman has
the right to make her own medical decisions, I am ready for that
debate. Our constituents deserve a frank discussion about a woman's
right to choose. It is unfair and it is misleading to characterize this
bill as anything other than an assault on reproductive freedom in this
country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in the opposition of
this misleading base legislation and in favor of the Lofgren substitute
that protects the pregnant woman without reducing her own rights.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, passing this bill, the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act, which is also known as Laci and Conner's Law, should be
common sense to us all. I am mystified, frankly, by those who seem to
be hysterical in their opposition to this commonsense legislation.
Let us see why this bill is so important. This is a picture of Ashley
Lyons. Ashley learned last year that she was expecting; and the joy of
the thought of her new child filled her heart. Tragically, earlier this
year, Ashley was murdered and her unborn son, Landon, died as well. Was
one life lost, or were two? Of course, two people died in that crime.
Here is a picture of Tracy Marciniak and her son, Zachariah. While in
the 9th month of pregnancy, Tracy was brutally beaten, a crime which
resulted in the death of her unborn son, Zachariah. According to some,
even some in this very Chamber, according to some in this very chamber
Today, there was no murder committed here. And according to some in
this very Chamber, Tracy did not lose her child.
Did two people die when Ashley Lyons and her son, Landon, were
murdered, or just one? Was a murder committed when Tracy Marciniak was
beaten and her unborn son was killed? During the search for Laci
Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, in San Francisco, did they find
two bodies or did they find just one body?
Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues think nobody died here, that there were
no crimes committed here, then vote ``no'' on this bill. But if my
colleagues can get past the politics and the idealogy to see the truth,
if they can see the common sense that there were two victims in this
crime, that there was a murder committed here and that there were two
victims in the Peterson murder case, then they must and they will vote
``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will read into the Record some letters that we have
here. This bill has been represented as a bill on family violence. We
have here a letter in opposition to the bill and in support of the
Lofgren substitute from the Family Violence Prevention Fund. It says:
``If Congress is serious about stopping domestic violence against
pregnant women and helping women and children who are victims, Members
will quickly pass the Domestic Violence Screening, Treatment and
Prevention Act, H.R. 1267.''
The American Association of University Women is opposed to this bill.
The National Women's Law Center is opposed to this bill.
The National Council of Jewish Women is opposed to this bill in which
they say that ``this bill defines an unborn child as a member of the
species homo sapiens at any stage of development. For the first time,
it gives separate legal protection to a fertilized egg, embryo, or
fetus and mandates penalties for harm to an unborn child equal to those
mandated for harm to the woman herself. This legal definition will set
a precedent that the anti-choice movement can exploit in its ongoing
efforts to equate abortion with murder. And it would establish a
foundation on which to build a case that the rights of fertilized eggs,
embryos, and fetuses are apart from and superior to the rights of the
women in whose bodies they develop.
``The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a sham designed to exploit
the understandable public sympathy for a woman who loses her pregnancy
or her life to violence in order to promote an agenda by which women
will in fact lose control of their bodies to the State.'' That is from
the National Council of Jewish Women.
The National Abortion Federation, the Religious Coalition of
Reproductive Choice, the American Civil Liberties Union, NARAL, People
for the American Way, the National Organization for Women, all of these
groups are concerned either about abortion rights, about reproductive
rights, about women's rights, about domestic violence; and they are all
opposed to this bill.
Juley Fulcher of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence,
which is the group that for the last 25 years has led the fight for
antidomestic violence legislation in the States and in the Congress,
testified against this bill in our committee, and I commend her
testimony to my colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert all of these letters into the Record at
this time.

[[Page H650]]

Family Violence Prevention Fund,

Washington, DC, January, 27, 2004.
Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Nadler: On behalf of the Family
Violence Prevention Fund, I am writing to express concern
about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, H.R. 1997, passed
by the House Judiciary Committee on January 21. We are deeply
disappointed that some are promoting this bill as a way to
end domestic violence, when better and more direct measures
to stop family violence languish in Congress year after year.
Members of Congress who want to stop abuse will put their
energy into passing the prevention and intervention measures
that offer great promise to stop violence before it starts.
The murder of Laci Peterson was an unspeakable tragedy, but
many laws designed as quick fixes have caused great harm. For
example, mandatory domestic violence health reporting laws
deter women from seeking the medical help they need. We need
to step back and consider what actually works. Our goal must
be to stop violence against all women, regardless of whether
they are pregnant.
If Congress is serious about stopping domestic violence
against pregnant women and helping women and children who are
victims, Members will quickly pass the Domestic Violence
Screening, Treatment and Prevention Act, H.R. 1267. this
essential bill would train health care providers to routinely
screen female patients for a lifetime history of abuse and
give women access to critical domestic violence services when
abuse is identified. Introduced in the House in March of 2003
by Representative Lois Capps (D-CA) and Steven LaTourette (R-
OH), this bill has the potential to prevent tragedies by
helping victims before violence escalates.
We also urge Congress to fully fund all Violence Against
Women Act programs and support legislation that would
actually prevent domestic violence before it begins. Domestic
violence prevention legislation should include services for
children who are exposed to abuse, programs that support
young families at risk of violence, and efforts to teach
young men and boys how to develop healthy, non-violent
relationships. Such legislation would do much more to stem
the tide of domestic violence than the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act.
Finally, we wish to thank you for your continued leadership
and support on this issue. As an advocate in Congress and as
one of our Founding Fathers, you truly make a difference in
the movement to end violence against women and children. If
we can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
Kiersten Stewart in our Washington, D.C. office at 202-682-
1212.
Sincerely,

Esta Soler,

President,
Family Violence Prevention Fund.
____

American Association of

University Women,

Washington, DC, January 27, 2004.

Oppose the H.R. 1997--The Unborn Victims of Violence Act

Dear Representative: On behalf of over 100,000 members of
the American Association of University Women (AAUW), we
express our deep opposition to the Unborn Victims of Violence
Act (H.R. 1997). AAUW opposes H.R. 1997 because it would
create a separate criminal offense if an individual kills or
injures an ``unborn child'' while committing a federal crime
against a woman. AAUW believes that the bill fails to
directly address the real problem--violence against women--
and ignores the needs of the woman by dismissing the fact
that any assault that harms a pregnancy is inherently an
attack on the woman.
AAUW has spent the last century fighting for protections
for women and children from all forms of violence. AAUW has
also worked tirelessly to protect a woman's right to choose.
These two priorities should never come into conflict, but
H.R. 1997 pits one against the other in an unnecessary attack
on the legitimacy of Roe v. Wade. H.R. 1997 attempts to
thwart a woman's right to choose by undermining that landmark
Supreme Court decision, which held that fetuses are not
persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. H.R.
1997 attempts to recognize a fetus as a person, with rights
separate from and equal to those of a woman, and worthy of
legal protection. Rather than creating separate legal rights
for the fetus, Congress should bolster its efforts on behalf
of pregnant women by enhancing the penalties for the
underlying crime against the woman.
Once again, we urge you to oppose H.R. 1997. If you have
any questions, please call Lisa Maatz, Director of Public
Policy & Government Relations, at 202/785-7720, or Lynsey
Morris, Government Relations Manager, 202/785-7730.
Sincerely,
Nancy Rustad,
President.
Jacqueline E. Woods,
Executive Director.
____

National Women's Law Center,

Washington, DC, January 20, 2004.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Women's Law Center,
we are writing to ask you to oppose H.R. 1997, ``The Unborn
Victims of Violence Act.'' This bill not only ignores the
violent crime against the woman but also sets a dangerous
federal precedent that will undermine a woman's right to
choose.
Acts of violence against women, and most certainly against
pregnant women, are abhorrent, and the criminal justice
system should respond decisively and strongly to them. But
H.R. 1997 is not the proper response. This bill would create
a separate offense for harm or termination of a pregnancy at
any stage of development during the commission of any of
several federal criminal acts. H.R. 1997 fails to recognize
the violence to the woman and ignores the reality that any
attack that harms a pregnancy inherently is an attack on the
pregnant woman herself. At a past House Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Constitution Hearing on this bill,
domestic violence expert Julie Fulcher testified against the
bill, stating, ``The `Unborn Victims of Violence Act' is not
designed to protect women. . . . The result is that the crime
committed against a pregnant woman is no longer about the
woman victimized by violence. Instead, the focus often will
be switched to the impact of that crime on the unborn fetus,
once again diverting the attention of the legal system away
from domestic violence or other violence against women.''
This legislation would also unnecessarily inject the
abortion debate into the federal criminal system. It creates
a separate offense for harm to the ``unborn child,'' which it
defines as ``a member of the species homo sapiens, at any
stage of development, who is carried in the womb,'' and
punishes this violation as if the offense had occurred to a
person. If enacted, it would be the first federal law where a
zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus could be an independent
victim of a crime, and thus a ``legal person'' with the same
legal rights as live-born individuals. Thus, this legislation
conflicts with the legal principles underlying the Supreme
Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.
Moreover, the bill's construction and vague language
ensures that prosecutions will get bogged down in arguments
about when life begins--discussions better held by
constitutional scholars, academics, clerics and philosophers,
not by juries in criminal courts. Ultimately, the bill as
crafted provides a vehicle for yet another challenge to Roe
and its progeny before the United States Supreme Court. A
much simpler bill could have been crafted to create new
federal anti-crime legislation--rather than anti-abortion
legislation.
We look forward to working with you on legislation that
truly addresses the tragedy of a pregnancy lost due to a
violent crime. Other proposals are being developed that focus
on the attack on the woman and resulting harm to her fetus.
These alternatives would allow for swift and efficient
prosecution of criminal wrongdoers and would not undermine
the legal principles underlying a woman's right to choose. We
urge you to oppose H.R. 1997--although it purports to aid
women, in reality this bill not only ignores women crime
victims but undermines their constitutional rights.
Sincerely,
Marcia D. Greenberger,
Co-President.
Judy Waxman,
Vice President, Health and Reproductive Rights.
____

National Council of

Jewish Women,

Washington, DC, January 2004.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 90,000 members of the
National Council of Jewish Women, I urge you to oppose the
``Unborn Victims of Violence Act,'' (S. 1019) which purports
to protect pregnant women by enhancing penalties for criminal
acts that harm an ``unborn child.'' Recognizing harm to an
``unborn child'' that is injured in the commission of a crime
does nothing to help pregnant women that are victims of
violence. It merely aids the anti-choice movement in
establishing separate legal status for the fetus.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act defines an ``unborn
child'' as ``a member of the species homo sapiens, at any
stage of development.'' For the first time, it gives separate
legal protection to a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus, and
mandates penalties for harm to an ``unborn child'' equal to
those mandated for harm to the woman herself. This legal
definition will set a precedent that the anti-choice movement
can exploit in its ongoing efforts to equate abortion with
murder. And, it would establish a foundation on which to
build a case that the rights of fertilized eggs, embryos, and
fetuses are apart from and superior to the rights of the
women in whose bodies they develop.
The ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act'' is a sham, designed
to exploit the understandable public sympathy for a woman who
loses her pregnancy or her life to violence in order to
promote an agenda by which women will in fact lose control of
their bodies to the state.
If you have any questions, please contact Carolyn Ratner,
Senior Legislative Associate, at 202-296-2588.
____

National Abortion Federation,

January 27, 2004.
Representative Nadler,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Nadler: On behalf of the National
Abortion Federation (NAF), I am writing to thank you for your
principled opposition to H.R. 1997, ``The Unborn Victims of
Violence Act.'' This legislation poses

[[Page H651]]

a direct threat to a woman's right to choose a safe and legal
abortion by granting personhood to a zygote, blastocyst,
embryo, and fetus separate and apart from the woman.
NAF opposes this legislation because it does nothing to
protect pregnant women. Not a single provision of the bill
addresses the underlying problem of violence against women.
Instead, the bill emphasizes the fetus over the woman,
diverts attention away from violence against women, and fails
to recognize that the best way to protect a fetus is to
better protect women from violence.
The supporters of the bill claim that they want to protect
pregnant women. The true intent behind this bill--to
dismantle Roe v. Wade and undermine a woman's right to choose
has been exposed. Additionally, this bill would set a
dangerous legal precedent by establishing in law that an
``unborn child'' is an individual separate from a woman, and
by elevating its status above that of a woman. The
legislation makes no distinction between a fetus that is nine
months old, an embryo that is six weeks old, a blastocyst
that is four days old and has yet to implant in the uterus,
and a zygote that is two hours old and has yet to split into
more than two cells. By granting full personhood to a fetus,
embryo, blastocyst, and zygote, the bill threatens to set the
stage for a complete prohibition of abortion.
Acts of violence against women, including pregnant women,
are intolerable, and the criminal justice system should
respond to them. H.R. 1997, however, is not the right
response. Thank you again for your vote against this
legislation, and for your continuing support of a woman's
right to choose.
Sincerely,
Vicki Saporta,
President & CEO.
____

Religious Coalition for

Reproductive Choice,

Washington, DC, January 27, 2004.
Representative Jerrold Nadler,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Nadler: I am writing to express my strong
opposition to the so-called ``Unborn Victims of Violence
Act,'' H.R. 1997, which was recently reported out by the
House Judiciary Committee.
The bill recognizes a fertilized egg, zygote or fetus as a
person by explicitly stating that any human ``in utero'' is a
``child,'' regardless of gestational length. Thus the bill
seeks to impose one religious belief about the beginning of
life--that the fetus at all stages of development is a
person--and make it the law for all, regardless of individual
beliefs. As an interfaith coalition, we believe that
government must not impose one religious view about any issue
on everyone.
The claims by UVVA supporters that this bill is about
preventing violence against pregnant women are preposterous.
Their unwillingness to consider the amendments offered in
committee by Reps. Lofgren, Baldwin and Scott shows that
their aim is to establish fetal personhood and fetal rights,
rather than to address the serious problem of violence
against pregnant women.
The main purpose of this bill is to identify the fertilized
egg or fetus as a separate ``person'' with legal rights
distinct from those of the pregnant woman, and thus lay the
foundation for overturning Roe v. Wade. I strongly urge its
defeat.
Sincerely,
Rev. Carlton W. Veazey,
President and CEO.

American Civil Liberties Union,

Washington, DC, January 20, 2004.

Oppose ``The Unborn Victims of Violence Act'' (H.R. 1997) During
Tomorrow's Judiciary Committee Markup

Dear Representative: The ACLU strongly urges you to oppose
H.R. 1997, deemed by its sponsors ``The Unborn Victims of
Violence Act,'' when it is marked up in the House Judiciary
Committee tomorrow. This bill unnecessarily undermines
reproductive freedom, when alternative approaches to
punishing violent crimes against women exist.
H.R. 1997 would amend the Federal criminal code to create
a new, separate offense if, during the commission of certain
Federal crimes, an individual causes the death of, or bodily
injury to, what the sponsors call a ``child in utero.''
Because H.R. 1997 applies to all stages of prenatal
development, it would be the first Federal law to recognize a
zygote (fertilized egg), a blastocyst (pre-implantation
embryo), an embryo (through week eight of a pregnancy), or a
fetus as an independent ``victim'' of a crime with legal
rights distinct from the woman who has been harmed by a
violent criminal act.
The ACLU fully supports efforts to punish acts of violence
against women that harm or terminate a wanted pregnancy. This
bill is an inappropriate method of imposing such punishment,
however, because it dangerously seeks to separate the woman
from her fetus in the eyes of the law. It could dramatically
alter the existing legal framework, elevate the fetus to an
unprecedented status in Federal law, and undermine the
foundations of the right to choose abortion.
In addition, H.R. 1997 explicitly disavows a mens rea (or
criminal intent) requirement with respect to the harm to the
fetus and thus is in tension with the Constitution's Due
Process guarantees. The bill permits a person to be convicted
of the offense of harm to a fetus even if he or she did not
know, and had no reason to know, that the woman was pregnant,
and he or she did not intend to cause harm to the fetus. Such
a result undermines the Constitution's promise of due
process.
Criminal interference with a woman's right to bear a child
should be prevented and punished. Legislation that imposes
enhanced penalties for violent acts that intentionally
compromise a pregnancy appropriately punish the additional
injury a woman suffers without recognizing the fetus as a
legal entity separate and distinct from the woman who has
been harmed.
For these reasons, we strongly urge you to vote against
H.R. 1997 when it is considered in the Judiciary Committee.
Sincerely,
Laura W. Murphy,
Director.
Gregory T. Nojeim,
Associate Director and Chief Legislative Counsel.
____

NARAL Pro-Choice America,

January 23, 2004.
Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Nadler: I write to reiterate NARAL Pro-
Choice America's opposition to H.R. 1997, the so-called
Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
This legislation recognizes a second legal ``person'' when
a pregnant woman is a victim of certain federal crimes.
Sponsors claim the bill is aimed at violence against women,
and at first blush, their proposal may seem reasonable or
innocuous. Indeed, NARAL Pro-Choice America strongly believes
that acts of violence against women, especially pregnant
women, are tragic and should be punished to the full extent
of the law. But sponsors of the Unborn Victims of Violence
Act are not interested in addressing the real issues at hand.
Unfortunately, a close examination reveals that the bill is
not designed to protect pregnant women from violence.
Instead, it is carefully crafted to undermine a woman's right
to choose. The bill creates a separate federal offense if,
during commission of certain crimes, a person causes death or
injury to what the sponsors call ``a member of the species
homo sapiens at all stages of development.'' For the first
time in federal law, this bill recognizes a zygote
(fertilized egg), blastocyst (preimplantation embryo), embryo
(through week eight of a pregnancy), and fetus as a
``person'' that can be an independent victim of a crime.
For the first time in federal law, this legislation would
grant an embryo rights separate from, and equal to, those of
a woman. Any doubts about the sponsor's true motives have
been erased. Indeed, one of the bill's lead sponsors
admitted: ``They say it undermines abortion rights. It does.
But that's irrelevant.'' Similarly, a prominent anti-choice
advocate has observed: ``In as many areas as we can, we want
to put on the books that the embryo is a person . . . That
sets the stage for a jurist to acknowledge that human beings
at any stage of development deserve protection--even
protection that would trump a woman's interest in terminating
a pregnancy.''
While NARAL Pro-Choice America agrees that crimes against
pregnant women should be punished, there are other ways to
accomplish that goal that do not embroil the issue in the
abortion debate. When the Judiciary Committee considered the
bill, members offered a number of sensible amendments, each
of which would have represented a more responsible and
effective option. Unfortunately, anti-choice committee
members defeated each attempt, for one reason only: it did
not grant legal ``personhood'' status to an embryo or fetus.
Finally, it is important to note that domestic-violence
organizations--which take no position on legal abortion--
oppose the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The National
Coalition Against Domestic Violence testified that this
legislation excludes the woman entirely from the equation and
could end up exacerbating, not improving, vulnerable women's
circumstances. If Congress were truly interested in
protecting women, it could enact sensible policies that help
prevent, intervene against, and provide services for women
who are victims of domestic violence and other violent
crimes.
NARAL Pro-Choice America shares their concern and urges
Congress instead to pass common-sense measures that help
women, and do not undermine their rights.
Thank you for your consideration.
Warm regards,
Kate Michelman,
President.
____

People For the American Way,

Washington, DC, January 23, 2004.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 600,000
members and activists of People For the American Way, we are
writing to oppose H.R. 1997, the ``Unborn Victims of Violence
Act.'' While purporting to protect pregnant women from
violence, this bill threatens the foundation of the landmark
Roe v. Wade decision by establishing legal ``personhood'' for
embryos and fetuses.
Violence against pregnant women is tragic and deserves to
be punished. To this end, People For the American Way
strongly supports efforts to protect women from violence

[[Page H652]]

and to address the fact that homicide is the leading cause of
death among pregnant women. However, the ``Unborn Victims of
Violence Act'' is not the answer, for it holds the noble goal
of protecting pregnant women from violence hostage to
language threatening women's right to choose.
By contrast, the substitute bill that Rep. Lofgren offered
in the Judiciary Committee serves the goal of protecting
pregnant women without at the same time threatening women's
reproductive freedom. Like the underlying bill, Rep.
Lofgren's ``Motherhood Protection Act'' would authorize
additional penalties for violence against pregnant women--up
to 20 years when an embryo or fetus is injured and up to life
in prison if a pregnancy is terminated. Unlike the underlying
bill, however, the Lofgren substitute would not threaten Roe
by recognizing the embryo or fetus as a separate legal
``person.''
We strongly urge you to protect pregnant women and a
woman's right to choose. Oppose the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act and instead support the Motherhood Protection
Act. Pregnant women deserve additional protection against
violence, but they should not have to pay for it with their
reproductive freedom.
Sincerely,
Ralph G. Neas,
President.
Marge Baker,
Director of Public Policy.
____

National Organization for Women,

Washington, DC, January 26, 2004.
Honorable Member,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The National Organization for Women
opposes H.R. 1997, formerly titled the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act of 2003 (UVVA) and now called Laci and Conner's
Law. This bill would advance the legal status of an embryo or
fetus, making it equal to that of a pregnant woman and,
consequently, would seriously erode the rights guaranteed
under Roe v. Wade.
Through this legislation, sponsors are attempting to
establish in law the extreme view that the legal rights of an
embryo are separate from, and different from, the pregnant
woman's--and then to press for additional statutory
provisions that would overturn a basic tenet of the Roe
decision.
The Supreme Court has held that fetuses are not legal
``persons'' within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution; this is an important holding that
should be safeguarded. Changing the criminal system to
include independent prosecution for injuring a fetus is a
dangerous legal precedent that would have broad implications
in limiting women's rights. A further defect is that there is
no requirement that the perpetrator knew of the pregnancy or
intended to harm the fetus. Without a showing of intent--a
key component of criminal law--prosecuting such cases would
be extremely difficult.
In addition, H.R. 1997 does not provide additional
protections for pregnant women, who are often the target of
violent assault. If Congress truly wants to protect pregnant
women, then a revision is needed of the bill's language to
more appropriately focus on the woman. Over 20 states have
enhanced penalties for a crime against a pregnant woman that
results in a miscarriage or interruption of normal fetal
development. Congress could follow suit by increasing or by
directing judges to escalate the penalty according to the
gestational stage of the pregnancy when the harm was
inflicted.
We believe that if UVVA is adopted, opponents of women's
reproductive rights fully intend to broaden the law to allow
women to be sued for harm to their fetuses--a frightening
scenario that is being tested in several states.
____

Planned Parenthood,

Washington, DC, January 23, 2004.
Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Nadler: As you know, on Wednesday, January
21st, the House Judiciary Committee marked-up the so-called
``Unborn Victims of Violence Act,'' (H.R. 1997) passing the
bill out of committee. We greatly appreciate your help and
support in defeating this dangerous legislation.
Planned Parenthood recognizes that the loss of a pregnancy
through violence to a woman is a tragedy for the woman and
her family. Violence against women, in particular pregnant
women, continues to be a significant problem in this country,
and begs for legislation that protects women against
violence. However, H.R. 1997 does nothing to protect women.
It purported aim, to protect ``unborn children'' from
violence, is misguided at best. On its face, this bill
creates a penalty for violation of a number of criminal
statutes if, in the course of commission of these crimes, an
``unborn child'' is injured or killed. The dangerous reality
of the bill, however, is that it would elevate the legal
status of the fetus to that of an adult human being. This is
merely the first step toward eroding a woman's right to
choose. The loss of a wanted pregnancy is always a tragedy,
but solutions should be real, not political.
Planned Parenthood fully supports a woman's right to
choose, including a woman's right to choose to carry a
pregnancy to term. Because H.R. 1997 does nothing to protect
women and because its clear intent is to create fetal
personhood, Planned Parenthood Federation of America opposes
this legislation. We believe that Congress should adopt a
more reasoned approach that would protect all women from
violence.
Again, on behalf of the Planned Parenthood Federation of
America and the millions of women who use our services, I
want to thank you for strong opposition to this legislation.
If we can be of any assistance, please feel free to contact
our office.
Sincerely yours,
Gloria Feldt,
President.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply reiterate again and summarize this debate.
Do we oppose violence against women? Obviously. Do we think that when
someone assaults a pregnant woman and harms the fetus, it is an
additional crime, a separate crime deserving of additional and separate
punishment? Yes. Does the substitute make it a separate crime? Yes.
Does the substitute give it additional punishment equal to or even more
severe than in some cases in this bill? Yes.
What is the difference here? The difference between the bill and the
substitute is only that we believe it is a separate crime against the
woman. The bill makes it a separate crime against a new victim, a
separate victim, the fetus. It counts the fetus as a full person for
the purpose of this crime, and every speaker who has risen on the
opposite side has said that, and I agree that that is what it does. We
disagree with that, because it goes against all of our legal tradition,
and it goes against the rationale of the Supreme Court in upholding
abortion rights; and its purpose is to lay the foundation for laws that
would criminalize abortion because, after all, if the fetus is a
person, then abortion is murder. It lays the foundation for laws that
would restrict the liberty of pregnant women because, after all, if the
fetus has rights equal to or superior to those of the pregnant woman,
then we have to restrict her liberty and her actions to protect the
fetus.
These things we are not prepared to do, and that is the debate on
this bill; and that is why I urge defeat of this bill and support of
the Lofgren substitute.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who will close the general debate on this
side.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say, I am very happy that
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) was never aborted. I am glad
he is here. He stimulates the discussion. He is even fun, on occasion;
and I am very glad that the gentleman survived.
I also would like to say that yesterday, I heard two gentlewomen from
the other side complain that they have kept a scorecard, and over 200
times in the immediate years we have had to vote on abortion. That was
a considerable annoyance to them, and I regret that. But I do not think
any single issue defines the difference between the two sides better
than that remark about having to vote 200 times on abortion, because
that indicates that abortion is not all that important to them. After
all, it is a thing. It is a commodity. It is a throw-away, used
Kleenex; but it is not a life, a human life.
Now, of course, we feel differently. We feel it is a human life. We
feel it is entitled to respect and dignity, and it is entitled to due
process of law. And, of course, they deny that.

{time} 1200

So that concern that we have had to debate this issue too much, it
seems to me, defines the positions of the two sides.
Now, some years ago, in fact it was 1841, John Quincy Adams
represented 35 slaves from the ship Amistad in a court proceeding where
he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on their behalf, and he told
the Court, he said, this is the most important case you will ever hear
because it involves the very nature of man. Of course, he was talking
about slaves, whom some people held to be commodities, chattels, things
that could be bought and sold or thrown away if need be, but less than
human, and so that case did involve the nature of man, and so do we.
I am sorry that we get another check in the scorecard because we are
discussing this one more time, but I will suggest to my friends on the
other side,

[[Page H653]]

you will never get rid of this issue as long as there are people who
are sensitive to the notion that all human life is precious and
deserving of protection, especially the vulnerable, the weak, the
small, the defenseless that cannot rise up in the streets, cannot
escape, but is disposable by your ethic.
I would like to see a little honesty in this debate. By that I mean
stop with the euphemisms. Right to choose, my goodness, everybody's for
the right to choose. It is what you are choosing that is important.
There is only one choice, a dead baby or a live baby. But the right to
choose is a process, it is not substantive.
They refer to the unborn as a fetus or as the product of conception.
All these euphemisms, these marketing tools, let us call it what it is.
Why do you shy away from the word abortion? Abortion, the only time you
use it is when you point the finger at us and say we are against
abortion, and in that you are quite right.
Well, Mr. Adams before the Supreme Court presented the question as to
whether slaves were worthy of protection under the law, whether they
had value, and that is the issue here. You deny personhood, which is a
legal concept, to the unborn; when is a person a person when you do not
really know. The Court took a pass on that, and of course you take it.
It is a legal construct. A personhood belongs to the human aspect of
life; not animal, not vegetable, not mineral, but a person, personhood.
I assign personhood to a tiny entity, a fertilized egg. I guess it is
very small, even premicroscopic, but it is the beginning of the human
life, and if you deny that, you are kidding yourself, and you are
clinically primitive because that is not so. You want to deny any
dignity, any value, any status, any standing to an unborn child. Never
mind the sonograph, never mind what your senses tell you, never mind
that the pregnant woman knows she is carrying her baby, her baby. Never
mind that, because it is tough to argue for killing, which is what
abortion does. It kills a baby. You will not admit that. You will say
it is an exercise of reproductive rights, apt alliterations, artful
aid.
Well, what we are talking about here in this bill is saying that
little unborn child has value, that little unborn child is
intrinsically precious and valuable and deserving of standing in the
law and protection, and to deny that, of course, is no surprise for
some of you. Some of you felt partial-birth abortion was okay. They are
the babies fourth-fifths born and is almost out of the birth canal, and
the means of killing that baby is grotesque, but if you can stomach
that, well, a little thing like this ought to be no problem.
Well, I say it is a problem, and I say we do not need permission to
discuss it. We do not have to ask if it is already all right if we go
201 times on this question. The dignity, the personhood, the substance
of an unborn child is what we are speaking for, and you are denying it.
You are saying it is subhuman, it is less than significant. I do not
question anybody's motives, but I do question your judgment, your
sensitivity and your imagination. You cannot imagine that little tiny
speck of humanity as a member of the human family, and you get so
locked into that non sequitur that as time goes on and it is almost
born, you still cannot admit that it is a human life deserving of
protection.
So this is a good bill. It does not impact on a woman's right to
choose because specifically it eliminates any impact this bill has on
abortion, whether the doctor or the mother or not, and so it is really
a no-brainer in that we spend so much time trying to dispute that a
woman who is pregnant has another little party in her womb. It could be
another gender. Woman is a female, and the baby is a male. It could be
a different blood type. We spend a lot of money on doctors performing
miracles of surgery to save little children, and here you want to
justify throwing it away because somebody does not want it.
Well, here is an opportunity to not restrict the liberty of a
pregnant woman, but to enhance the sanctity of human life and defend
what, under your rubric, would be defenseless.
So I hope this bill passes. I regret the gentlewoman from
California's (Ms. Lofgren) substitute because it dehumanizes, it
desensitizes, it reduces in standing and status the unborn, who needs
our protection more than anything in the world because they are alone
and defenseless. So I hope that we support this bill, the underlying
bill. I hope we defeat the substitute, which demeans the humanity of
the little defenseless child who we should be standing with and holding
up and defending.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the distinguished gentleman from Illinois
for the passion he brings to this discussion, but more than that, for
the clarity and honesty he brings to this discussion, for he has swept
away much of the rhetoric and much of the underbrush which impedes a
clear view of this and defined the real issue.
This is a bill about abortion, as he quite clearly recognizes. Both
the bill and the substitute have the same practical impact. They both
define two crimes. They both define the same penalties. They both have
the same deterrent effect. That is not the issue, as he recognizes.
The bill defines the fetus as a person from the moment of conception.
The substitute does not recognize the fetus as a person, for legal
purposes, from the moment of conception. That is the difference, and
that is the core of the abortion debate, as the distinguished gentleman
recognizes.
The people who believe abortion to be murder believe a fetus, a
zygote, a blastocyst is a person, a full human person with full and
equal and legal rights from the moment of conception. We do not. We do
not use the euphemism ``a right to choose'' as a euphemism for
abortion. We support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion if
she wishes. We support a woman's right to bear a pregnancy to term if
she wishes. That is why we say we support the right to choose.
Abortion is clearly troubling emotionally and intellectually to many
people. I, for one, and I can only speak personally, would find an
abortion of a 9-month pregnant fetus, that is to say, a 9-month-old
fetus, a horror, and I believe it is, in fact, illegal, except to save
the life of the mother. On the other hand, I do not believe that a two-
cell zygote after conception is a human being. I do not believe that. I
believe that it has the potential. It obviously has the potential to
become a human being, but it is simply two cells, and I have no
compunction about an abortion of a group of cells. I do not believe it
to be a human being.
That question, whether a small clump of cells or an embryo is a human
being or not, is not a question that we are ever going to agree on. The
chairman said the abortion debate is going to be with us forever, and I
think he may be right, certainly a long time. We are not going to
disagree on that question.
The difference is I respect everyone's right to their opinion,
whether informed by physiology, by religion, by morality, by their
concept of morality, to make that decision for themselves as to how
they regard a blastocyst or a zygote. Some religions declare it a
human; some religions say no. I do not think it is the job of Congress
to dictate to people how to make that very personal, moral decision. I
believe that decision is one which must be left to a woman.
If a woman says that, to me, as the woman, the embryo at early stage
of development is a human being, and I will not have an abortion even
if it risks my life, I will respect that decision. She is entitled to
it. I would not support Congress coming in and saying we will save her
life despite her will if she is competent because we do not agree with
her moral decision. On the other hand, if she says, my moral decision
is that I do not believe an early embryo or fetus is a human being and
I want to have an abortion, that is her decision. I will not want
Congress or the State legislature or the President to say, you are
wrong morally, my moral conviction is superior to yours, and therefore,
I will use the power of the State, the power of compulsion to put my
moral conviction over yours. That is the debate here.
This bill is mostly a sham. The distinguished gentleman from Illinois
takes the sham away and says what is really at stake, what is really
the issue, and the real issue is are we going to say, which we have
never said before, we had that Biblical passage

[[Page H654]]

which I brought, as I said before, I do not think Congress ought to
enact Biblical or religious law into civil law, but I brought it to
show that in the Biblical times they did not regard a fetus as a
person, because if you killed the fetus, you had monetary
compensations. If the woman died, there was a capital punishment
because the fetus is not regarded as a full person. That brought back,
we have not regarded an Anglo-Saxon law, a Roman law up until now, a
fetus as a full person.
Now, because of the abortion debate that erupted 30 years or so ago,
the last 30 years, people have tried to change the law to say that we
should give legal recognition to the assertion that a fetus or an
embryo from the moment of conception is a person for legal purposes. We
do not agree with that. This bill would do that. Therefore, we are
opposed to this bill.
Some people have that opinion. Some people have that conviction. I
respect the conviction. Some religions say so. I respect that. Others
disagree. We should not use the power of law to impose that opinion,
that theological opinion, that physiological opinion, that moral
opinion on people who do not share it and wish to have abortions or
other acts that may flow from that.
That is the distinction here, and this bill is an abortion bill
despite not what the gentleman from Illinois said, but some other
people said, because, as I said before, the consequences of the
defining a second crime, the substitute would do, giving a severe
penalty, giving additional penalties, are the same in the bill and the
substitute. The difference is the legal underpinning, and the only
reason we care about the legal underpinning is because of what it says
about the key distinction underneath the legal right to an abortion and
the underpinning for Roe v. Wade.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, I am sure, understands, because
he is a good lawyer, that the unborn has legal status in probate
matters where a pregnant woman is an heir or beneficiary and is
pregnant and the interests of the child may be different. So a guardian
ad litem is appointed. You understand that a woman can be pregnant, and
her pregnant child could be injured in the womb and have a cause of
action.

{time} 1215

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand, and I am
not an expert in probate or estate law, but I do understand that as the
fetus gets older, our law gives it more recognition. In fact, the
Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade said in the first trimester the interest
of the woman and her choice completely prevails, you cannot regulate
abortion. In the second trimester there is more of an interest, and,
therefore, you can regulate; and in the third trimester after
viability, you can prohibit abortion. That is in Roe v. Wade because it
recognizes that there is more interest that attaches. I do not deny
that, and exactly how much attaches and so forth we can debate in a lot
of contexts.
What I am saying is that the definition of the fetus or the embryo as
a human being, as a person, for purposes of law in all respects, which
is what this bill would do, we have never done. We do not do now, we
have never done, and in my opinion we should not because it is one
conception. It is a defensible proposition, but it is not a proposition
that many people and religions agree with, and it is not a proposition
that we should impose by Congress pro or con. I urge adoption of the
substitute, not the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Watson).
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The bill seeks to recognize a
fetus at any stage of development as a person. I think we are all aware
scientifically that a fetus cannot survive on its own like a person
can. This bill is yet another covert attack on a woman's right to
choose waged by extreme thinking. It sacrifices real protections for
women at the expense of a politically driven agenda to undercut Roe v.
Wade, and I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this antichoice bill.
H.R. 1997 defines the phrase ``child in utero'' or ``unborn child''
as a fetus at any stage of development from conception to birth. In
effect, the language undercuts Roe v. Wade, which held that a fetus
even after viability is not a person for purposes of the 14th
amendment. By creating a new Federal crime for bodily injury and/or
death of an unborn child, the bill opens a new door of litigation over
when life begins in the context of criminal prosecutions.
H.R. 1997 also contributes little to the actual protection of women.
Rather than enhancing penalties under existing law for criminal acts
against pregnant women, the bill diverts the attention to the fetus. As
Juley Fulcher of the nonpartisan National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence stated in her testimony to Congress, ``The goal of the act is
to further a specific political agenda. The result is that the crime
committed against a pregnant woman is no longer about the woman
victimized by violence.''
Make no mistake about it, violence against women remains a serious
issue in today's society, and Congress should address the issue. The
statistics are shocking but true: The leading cause of death of
pregnant women is murder. It is one of the reasons why I support the
Lofgren substitute amendment that targets the crime of violence against
pregnant women without falling into an antichoice trap. The substitute
would create a separate and distinct crime for any violence or
assaulting conduct against a pregnant woman that interrupts or
terminates her pregnancy in addition to the assault on the pregnant
woman. This is the appropriate approach to the issue. I strongly urge
my colleagues to reject H.R. 1997 and support the Lofgren substitute.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, H.R.
1997, is a needed and important bill that must be passed.
I believe that we must protect unborn children against acts of
violence. It is for this reason that I have cosponsored H.R. 1997.
Under current federal law, if a criminal assaults or kills a pregnant
woman and causes death or injury to her unborn child, they face no
consequences for taking or injuring that unborn life. The Unborn
Victims of Violence Act would make any act that causes death of, or
bodily injury to, a child who is in utero at the time the conduct takes
place, guilty of a separate crime. If enacted, H.R. 1997 would afford
protection to a completely defenseless life form, an unborn child, by
creating a separate offense for acts of violence against the unborn
child.
We passed this bill by a solid majority in the last Congress. I am
hopeful that this year, our Colleagues in the other body will be able
to move this legislation and we can send a final bill to the President
for him to sign into law.
We have laws that protect men, women, and children from murder. We
should have a law to protect the unborn, the most innocent and helpless
of God's creations, from murder. This is a common-sense bill and a
necessary bill. I'm proud to be a co-sponsor and proud to support this
legislation.
During the vote on H.R. 1997, had I not been traveling on
Congressional business, I would have voted, ``yea'' on rollcall vote
31, final passage for H.R. 1997. I would also have voted ``nay'' on
rollcall vote 30, the Lofgren amendment.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act.
Violence with the intent of injuring or killing a woman or any person
is wrong and deserves the most severe penalty. Such an act of violence
against a pregnant woman is an act against two lives and should be
punishable as separate offenses.
We need only look to the Lacy Peterson case in California for clear
and compelling evidence for the justification of two separate offenses.
Any person intent in causing harm or death through violence and crime
against any life must be held accountable for every life.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose H.R. 1997,
the so-called ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act.'' I am deeply
disappointed that Republicans are using this controversial bill as a
vehicle for their blatant attacks on a woman's right to choose.
The Republican majority party could enact a number of serious and
meaningful laws that prevent and punish violence against women.
However, instead of bringing common-sense measures up for debate, anti-
choice lawmakers bring the Unborn Victims of Violence Act to the floor.
It's perfectly clear why they're raising it. The Bush Administration--
along with Republicans in Congress--are trading the wishes of their
conservative base for votes in the upcoming elections.
This bill creates a separate Federal offense if, during commission of
certain crimes, a person causes death or injury to what the sponsors of
this bill call ``a member of the species

[[Page H655]]

homo sapiens at all stages of development.'' If this bill passes, it
will for the first time in Federal law, recognize a zygote, blastocyst,
embryo, and fetus as a ``person'' that can be an independent victim of
a crime. This bill does this even though the Supreme Court ruled in Roe
v. Wade that fetuses are not persons within the meaning of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Let's be clear, this bill will not help address the serious issue of
violence against women, which affects nearly one in every three women
during their adulthood. If its intent were truly this, I would fully
support it. In fact, domestic violence organizations, like the National
Coalition Against Domestic Violence--that do not take positions on
abortion--oppose this legislation.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act isn't the right solution. That's
why I oppose it and will instead vote for the substitute being offered
by my colleague Representative Zoe Lofgren. Her amendment, the
Motherhood Protection Act, will help to prevent crimes against pregnant
women, rather than embroil the issue surrounding the abortion debate.
It would create a second Federal offense for harming a pregnant woman
and would impose the same penalties for harm to, or termination of, a
pregnancy as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. But, importantly, the
Motherhood Protection Act recognizes the pregnant woman as the primary
victims of a crime rather than the fetus. This guarantees appropriate
penalties in the law without getting us into a volatile, unnecessary
debate over abortion.
Further exploiting the issues of violence against women, anti-choice
advocates have resorted to using the unfortunate case of Laci
Peterson's murder to push the legislation--even though passage of the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act has been one of their top legislative
priorities since 1999, long before the Peterson tragedy. Any doubts
about the sponsors' true motives were erased when Senator Orrin Hatch
told a reporter: ``They say it undermines abortion rights. It does. But
that's irrelevant.''
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act clearly fails to address the very
real need for strong Federal legislation to prevent and punish violent
crimes against women. Congress should be protecting pregnant women from
violent crime without having to resort to controversial bills like the
one before us. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this deceptive
bill, which does nothing to thwart acts of violence, and vote ``yes''
on the substitute being offered today, a real remedy for assaults made
against pregnant women.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of ending violence
against women, I look forward to the day that this House debates
legislation that will actually make women safer. Unfortunately, the
main goal of H.R. 1997 is undermining the freedom of choice, rather
than protecting pregnant women.
I strongly oppose H.R. 1997, which provides that whoever causes the
death of, or bodily injury to, a fetus, embryo, zygote, or otherwise
fertilized cell would be guilty of a separate criminal offense, and the
punishment would be the same as if the violent act had been committed
against an adult. By elevating a fetus to the same legal status as an
adult, this legislation seeks to recognize the existence of a separate
legal ``person'' where none currently exists. This creates the legal
ability to threaten the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.
Moreover, H.R. 1997 does not recognize two victims but focuses solely
upon providing legal protections for the fetus. the crime perpetrated
against the woman is absent from the bill altogether.
The issue of violence against women is a serious and concerning
problem that deserves our attention and resources. I support the
Democratic substitute to H.R. 1997, the Motherhood Protection
amendment. Without unnecessarily engaging in the abortion debate, this
substitute creates a new, separate federal offense for any violence or
assault against a pregnant woman that interrupts or terminates her
pregnancy. Crimes committed against pregnant women are heinous and
should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and the Democratic
substitute accomplishes that without undermining the principles of Roe
v. Wade.
Given the broad attention that many members have focused on this
particular issue of protecting women from violence, I am looking
forward to similar support for the full funding of the Violence Against
Women Act, which is currently funded 200 million dollars below the
authorization level.
I encourage my colleagues to support women both in their right to be
protected from violence, and in their right to reproductive freedom:
support the Motherhood Protection substitute, and oppose H.R. 1997.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to defend a woman's right to
choose and to oppose H.R. 1997.
Once again, the Republican leadership is challenging a woman's
constitutional right to make decisions regarding her own body.
This is not new legislation; in fact, the anti-choice movement has
forced the Unborn Victims of Violence Act through the House twice since
1999.
The bill's true purpose is not to address violent crime against
pregnant women. It is, and always has been, a way of undermining
freedom of choice.
H.R. 1997 does not recognize two victims. The mother is notably
absent from the bill altogether. In fact, H.R. 1997 does not require a
conviction for the underlying crime against the woman; the crime
against the woman could go unpunished.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act goes beyond its intent to protect
pregnant women and negates all the good it could do by deliberately and
unnecessarily conflicting the core principle of Roe v. Wade.
I challenge may colleagues, male and female, to look at our
Constitution and review the freedoms and civil rights that Congress has
worked strenuously over our nation's history to protect.
I support the Lofgren substitute because it recognizes the heinous
crime of attacking a pregnant woman by creating a new offense to punish
violence that results in injury to or termination of a pregnancy, in
addition to the crime against the pregnant woman.
I urge you to vote against H.R. 1997, The Unborn Victims of Violence
Act because it chips away at all women's civil rights and freedoms
which we must protect.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and in support of
Representative Lofgren's substitute.
On the surface, this bill appears to be an effort to protect pregnant
women from violence. However, it actually does little to prevent
violence against women, instead it dangerously opens the door to
undermine a women's right to choose. The vast majority of domestic
violence cases do not occur under federal jurisdiction, thus this bill
would not help any of these women.
I believe that if we are going to create a crime for causing harm
during a woman's pregnancy, we should also include efforts to prevent
violence against women without opening up the abortion debate. H.R.
1997 does not provide protections for the mother; in fact the mother is
hardly mentioned in the text of the bill. Instead it focuses solely on
the ``child in utero.''
The Lofgren substitute, on the other hand, achieves that which the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act only attempts to do. That is to provide
protection to pregnant women who are assaulted. And it does this
without opening up the abortion debate. This substitute focuses on
protecting women. Specifically, this substitute will make the assault
of a pregnant woman which results in the interruption or termination of
her pregnancy a federal offense. I believe the Lofgren substitute does
a better job of achieving the intentions of H.R. 1997 supporters than
the original bill. Not only does Representative Lofgren's substitute
remove the abortion debate from this bill, but it provides protection
for the mother and her pregnancy, not just the fetus.
It is important to mention that this approach can only be used if the
assailant has been convicted of the underlying offense, the assault to
the mother. I believe that the best way to protect women from violence
is not to attempt to provide legal rights to her fetus, but rather to
protect the mother herself, and work to prevent domestic violence
first.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act does not address the issue of
violence against women. This bill will undermine a woman's right to
choose, and have little affect on domestic violence in this country. As
a result, I cannot vote in favor of this bill as it stands. This
chamber needs to stand up against violence against women, especially
pregnant women, and I believe Representative Lofgren's substitute does
this. Thus, I will be voting in favor of this substitute and urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act introduced by my colleague
from Pennsylvania.
The legislation before us today establishes that if an unborn child
is injured or killed during the commission of a crime an additional
charge may be brought on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child.
Additionally, the bill stipulates that the same punishment be issued as
provided for under Federal law for the crime committed against the
mother.
The principle behind this bill is justice. Justice for the unborn
child and justice for those left behind to cope with the grief.
Justice, Mr. Speaker, for both victims. Currently over half of the
states, including my home state of Pennsylvania, have an unborn victims
law on the books. These laws have received increased attention over the
last year due to the Peterson case in California.
Fortunately, California has an unborn victims law and thus the crimes
committed against both Laci and Connor Peterson may be prosecuted and
justice will be brought for both victims.

[[Page H656]]

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that Americans have
shown that they support unborn victims laws. Three nationwide polls,
conducted in 2003 showed that respondents support unborn victims
legislation by margins of 8 to 1 and in some cases as high as 12 to 1.
The American people accept that an attack on a pregnant woman is not
just an attack on her, but an attack on her unborn child as well. It is
time for Congress to come to the same resolution.
In conclusion, I want to extend my sincere thanks to my colleague
from Pennsylvania, Congresswoman Hart. I appreciate her leadership on
this issue.
Mr. Speaker, the unborn cannot defend themselves when they are
attacked, yet they are no less a victim. I urge my colleagues to stand
up today to offer justice for all victims of violent crime.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon in
support of victims without a voice, victims like Carol Lyons' grandson
Landon. On January 7, 18-year-old Ashley Lyons and her unborn son,
Landon, were murdered. When Ashley's mother Carol testified before the
Kentucky Legislature's Senate Judiciary Committee on January 15 of this
year she said,

Noboby 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
goodbye for the last time and closed the casket.

H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act would provide that an
individual who injures or kills an unborn child, like Landon, during
the commission of one of nearly seventy specified federal crimes
against the mother would be guilty of a separate offense against the
unborn child. This is the right thing to do.
There are too many families suffering like the Lyons' family, knowing
that those responsible for the murder of their unborn child or
grandchild will never be punished for the crime they committed. We must
not allow Landon, and countless other unborn children's deaths to have
occurred in vain. Today, we have the opportunity to protect the rights
of the most innocent life, that of an unborn child.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in strong support of the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
H.R. 1997.
Ms. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1997 and for
America's voiceless unborn children. We are all familiar with the
tragic stories like the plight of Laci and Conner Peterson, and Landon
Lyons of Kentucky, as well as countless others. From these tragedies
one thing should be clear: Unborn children can be brutally victimized
through acts we already recognize as Federal crimes, and it is our duty
to ensure justice is served on behalf of these innocent victims.
In the unthinkable instance where a pregnant woman is physically
harmed, it is a simple fact that more than one life is potentially at
stake. The injury or death of a child who is still in utero is a crime
that must not continue to go unprosecuted.
We have a responsibility to do everything in our power to protect
both women and the unborn children they might be carrying. When both a
mother and her unborn child are the victims of crime, two people are
harmed. The law needs to recognize this reality, and I hope my
colleagues will do so by voting in favor of H.R. 1997.
Recently, our Nation celebrated the 184th birthday of one of our true
American heroes, Susan B. Anthony. Committed to the idea that all
people should be treated equally, she worked for years to champion both
the rights of women and unborn children. I can think of no better way
to honor the great memory of Susan B. Anthony than by upholding the
ideal of respect for the dignity of human life by supporting the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act of 2003.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for H.R.
1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
This important legislation would finally make it a separate Federal
offense to cause death or bodily injury to a child in utero in the
course of committing an already defined Federal offense. It is
imperative that we hold criminals responsible for conduct that harms or
kills an unborn child. I cannot understand the opposition to this bill.
It will not affect abortion laws, it merely affirms that a violent act
against a pregnant woman affects not only her but her unborn child as
well. There are most certainly two victims in such crimes, as 24 States
have already recognized.
This issue that we have debated for the past couple of years finally
caught the Nation's attention with the murders of Laci Peterson and her
unborn son Conner. Americans strongly believe that there were two
murders committed last December and that the law should reflect that.
Laci's family has suffered two losses. Thankfully under California law,
the murderer will be tried for taking two lives. This is not the case
at the Federal level. Laci and Conner's family has asked Congress to
rectify this. Laci's mother Sharon Rocha's heartfelt statement
expresses the need for this law better than I can:

Please understand how adoption of such a single-victim
proposal would be a painful blow to those, like me, 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--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.

The Peterson case, unfortunately, is only one of several. I am
horrified by stories such as that of Tracy Scheide Marciniak who was
only 4 days from delivering her baby boy Zachariah. Four days. For 9
months she had been eagerly awaiting his arrival, planning for his
birth and life, bonding with him in her womb. Unfortunately, her
husband brutally attacked her, targeting a few blows specifically on
her abdomen. Zachariah bled to death in her womb because of the blunt-
force trauma. Tracy nearly died herself but did recover from her
injuries and had to bury her baby boy without ever getting a chance to
see him alive. At the time Wisconsin did not have an unborn victims law
so Glendale Black was convicted on assault to her alone and is now
eligible for parole. The law did not recognize the loss of Zachariah's
life and Glendale Black did not pay for his crime.
Ohio is one of the States where it is a crime to kill an unborn child
in a violent act. Unlike Zachariah, Jasmine Robbins' father was
prosecuted for her manslaughter. Gregory Robbins assaulted his wife
Karlene who was 8 months pregnant with their daughter Jasmine. He
repeatedly struck her in the face and abdomen. Due to the assault,
Karlene's uterus ruptured and Jasmine died. Gregory Robbins pled guilty
to assault and battery to his pregnant wife and involuntary
manslaughter for Jasmine's death.
Jasmine's murder is no less tragic than Zachariah's but at least her
mother did not have to suffer the heartbreak of not having her murder
recongized under our laws.
We live in a society that does not respect life and that troubles me.
We have children killing children in our schools, husbands beating
their wives, and other violent crimes signifying that we as a culture
do not value and treasure life as we should. A good first step towards
recognizing the miracle of life is to ensure that those who take a life
are punished for their crime.
We cannot bring back Conner, Zachariah or Jasmine or the other
hundreds of unborn children violently murdered. We can, and must,
however, protect other unborn children from the same fate. We must
respect life and make criminals pay for attacks against all Americans,
born and in utero.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, violence against women is a serious
problem in this country. One in three women will experience physical
assault in her lifetime, with even greater risks for pregnant women.
Women carrying unintended pregnancies are two to four times more likely
to experience abuse. Murder is the leading cause of death for pregnant
women. An average of three women are killed every day by their husband
or boyfriend. Women who experience domestic violence are more likely to
delay prenatal care; 4.5 million women in America are assaulted every
year.
These figures are staggering and serious, but the bill under
consideration today, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, does not take
the risks women face seriously. This bill completely disregards women
as the primary victim of violence. You cannot harm a fetus without
causing physical harm to a pregnant woman first. If this body wanted to
consider violence against women, pregnant or not, seriously, I have a
few alternate suggestions. We could provide adequate funds for the
Violence Against Women Act so that no woman seeking help will ever be
turned away from a shelter. We should insure that victims of domestic
violence have equal access to programs funded under the Victims of
Crime Act. Additionally we should provide women with access to
contraceptive services, to thereby preventing unintended pregnancies
that make them more susceptible to these dangerous situations.
All the title X funded clinics in my district, including Pima County
Health Department Clinics, screen all women for domestic violence,
provide appropriate counseling services, and refer women to local
domestic violence agencies for additional services. They even provide
small information cards in the private bathrooms that are designed for
women to place in their shoes if they are at the clinic with an abusive
partner. Title X clinics are one of our most valuable resources in
reaching uninsured women who are victims of domestic violence.
Unfortunately these programs are drastically under funded. If this
Congress really would like to reach women in need, they would make
funding for this program a priority.
This bill is not a real solution. This bill only applies to cases of
assault that occur under

[[Page H657]]

Federal jurisdiction. Between 1994 and 2000, only 130 Federal cases
involved Federal domestic violence statutes. The public's broad support
for preventing and prosecuting assault on women is being exploited for
political purposes. This is an antiwoman bill. It disregards the
woman's role in the pregnancy, and allows the law to ignore any harm
inflicted upon her.
I urge my colleagues to support the Lofgren substitute which offers
real solutions and real penalties for tragic violence against women,
and oppose final passage of this misguided bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and I thank Representative Hart for
introducing this important legislation, as well as Chairman
Sensenbrenner for bringing this important legislation to the floor.
This bill will convey to violent criminals the important message that
when they inflict harm on a pregnant woman and her unborn child, those
criminals will be accountable for the harm done--not only to the
expecting mother, but also to the unborn child.
It is unthinkable that under current Federal law, an individual who
commits a Federal crime of violence against a pregnant woman receives
no additional punishment for killing or injuring the woman's unborn
child during the commission of the crime. Where is the justice when a
criminal can inflict harm upon a woman, even with the express purpose
of harming her unborn child, and not be held accountable for those
actions?
The American public knows that this bill is necessary--recent polls
have shown that approximately 80% of registered voters believed that
prosecutors should be able to separately charge the violent attacker of
a pregnant woman for the death of her unborn child. In addition, most
States have recognized this problem by passing laws to protect unborn
children--29 States, including my home State of Virginia, have seen the
wisdom in holding criminals accountable for their actions by making
violent criminals liable for conduct that harms or kills an unborn
baby.
Unfortunately, our Federal statutes do not sufficiently provide for
the protection of unborn children and as a result the Federal
punishment for these heinous crimes amounts to little more than a slap
on the wrist. Criminals are held more liable for damage done to
property than for intentional harm done to an unborn child. This
discrepancy in the law is appalling. It's time for Congress to Act.
Regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, those of us who
are parents can identify with the hope that accompanies the impending
birth of a child. No law passed by Congress could ever heal the
devastation created by the loss of a child, or ever replace a child
lost to violence. However, we can ensure that justice is done by making
sure that criminals who take the life of an unborn child pays for their
actions.
I urge each of my colleagues to join me in voting for the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while it is the independent duty of each
branch of the Federal Government to act constitutionally, Congress will
likely continue to ignore not only its constitutional limits but
earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, H.R. 1997, would amend
title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting
unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the
class of victims to which unconstitutional, but already-existing,
Federal murder and assault statutes apply, the Federal Government moves
yet another step closer to a national police state.
Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing
every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than
to uphold a constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure
by which the Nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil,
totalitarianism. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those Members of
Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent crimes initiated against
the unborn?
Nevertheless, our Federal Government is constitutionally, a
government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates
the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or
enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks
any authority or consent of the governed and only the State
governments, their designees, or the people in their private market
actions enjoy such rights to governance. The 10th amendment is brutally
clear in stating ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.'' Our Nation's history makes
clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the
power of central government. No serious reading of historical events
surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray
it differently.
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to
whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply--it further entrenches
and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision--the Court's
intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect
by criminal statute the unborn's right not to be aggressed against. By
specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the
mothers of the unborn--as is the case with this legislation--Congress
appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a
Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary
Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the
assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill
does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the
unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require
intent to kill--which implies knowledge--on the part of the aggressor.
Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist
with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution
while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child's existence is
subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. With respect to only the
fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence--yet
another diminution of the unborn's personhood status and clearly a
violation of the equal protection clause. It is becoming more and more
difficult for Congress and the courts to pass the smell test as
government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some
instances and as a nonperson in others.

In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the Federal
Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said ``the trend to
federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts
. . . threatens to change entirely the nature of Federal system.''
Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political
pressure to ``appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill
or sensational crime.''
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another constitutional
protection which comes with the passage of more and more Federal
criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal
crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high
seas, and counterfeiting--and, because the constitution was amended to
allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or
transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime.
``Concurrent'' jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the
past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to
be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S.
Constitution specifies that no ``person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .'' In other words, no
person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United
States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being
tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the
same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger
of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is
that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to
being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for
federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is
neither prudent nor constitutional.

Occasionaly the argument is put forth that States may be less
effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those
who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the
Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the
integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via
the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as
full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those
who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal
Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which
allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal
Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV,
Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from
one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed
an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon
States in working with one another rather than relying on a national,
unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to
centralization of police power.
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well
as the cost. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller,
independent jurisdictions--it is called competition and, yes,
governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete.
We have obsessed so much over the notion of ``competition'' in this
country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior
products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the
dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow
someone who serves to provide value as made obvious by their voluntary
exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of
scale in the private marketplace. Curiously, at the same time, we
further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and

[[Page H658]]

one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.

When small governments becomes too oppressive with their criminal
laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a ``competing''
jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay
taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to
provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona.
If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government
intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes
more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with
one's feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments.
Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen
mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend
to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility
less and less practical.
Protection of life--born or unborn--against initiations of violence
is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left
to the States' criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal,
constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to
federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the
unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal
Government's unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v.
Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 1997 ignores the danger of further
federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and,
in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of
Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby
and the bathwater.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 1997, the so-called
``Unborn Victims of Violence Act''. Since the landmark Roe v. Wade
Supreme Court decision, Congress has slowly passed legislation to erode
women's reproductive choices. This is a personal and private decision
that should be made by a woman, her family, her physician, and her own
beliefs.
This is the third time that people who oppose reproductive freedom
for women and their families have attempted this back door maneuver to
restrict abortion. Instead of focusing on purely political measures
aimed at the erosion of a woman's reproductive freedom, we should be
protecting women from violence and increasing assistance to women in
life-threatening domestic situations.
Harsh penalties already exist in 38 states for crimes against
pregnant women that result in the injury or death of her fetus. The
overwhelming majority of crimes against pregnant women that cause
injury to her fetus occur in cases of domestic abuse or drunk driving
accidents, instances that are prosecutable under currently existing
State laws. Nearly one in every three adult women experiences at least
one physical assault by their partner during adulthood. Drunk driving
accidents continue to result in substantial loss of life in every city
across the Nation. H.R. 1997 would do nothing to add to the existing
protections against these serious and prevalent crimes.
I support the Lofgren amendment, ``the Motherhood Protection Act'', a
crime bill that would protect pregnant women from violence and impose
stiffer penalties than the competing bill, ``the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act''. If protecting pregnant women from violent crime were
truly our priority, Congress would have passed the Lofgren amendment to
H.R. 1997.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1997,
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
A pregnant woman is 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.
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 legal system away from
efforts to punish violence against women.
The legislation would apply in a limited set of circumstances
involving members of the Armed Forces and anyone who injures or kills a
fetus during the commission of a crime under Federal jurisdiction. But
it should be noted that similar bills have been introduced in various
States that would cover anyone who harms or kills a fetus under any
circumstances.
Injury inflicted upon a fetus is accomplished by an assault on a
woman; therefore punishment for such crimes should be prosecuted as
crimes against women. Changing the criminal system to include
independent prosecution for harming a fetus is a dangerous legal
precedent, which could have broad implications in limiting women's
rights.
H.R. 1997 creates controversy around the issue of violence against
women where none exists and therefore exposes the true intention of the
bill's sponsors. Congress should take strong measures to protect all
women from violence rather than using this backdoor approach to
restrict a woman's right to choose. If we really want to punish
violence against pregnant women, it should be done in a way that does
not entangle this issue with the abortion debate.
H.R. 1997 is the first step toward outlawing abortion. The real
purpose of this legislation is not to deter and punish criminal conduct
but to erode the reproductive rights of women. This bill is a thinly
veiled attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade by establishing a distinct
legal status for a fetus in Federal law.
H.R. 1997 marks a major departure from current Federal Law by
elevating the legal status of a fetus at all stages of development. It
is an obvious attempt to add to Federal law the anti-choice definition
of an ``unborn child'' as ``a member of the species homo sapiens, at
any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.''
Recognizing the fetus as an entity with legal rights independent of
the pregnant woman would create future fetal rights that could only be
used a against a pregnant woman, possibly putting the woman and fetus
in conflict and placing the health, worth and dignity of the woman on a
lower level than a weeks-old embryo. For example, this legislation
could make it possible for a pregnant woman to be prosecuted for
failing to protect her fetus from domestic violence committed against
her.
We all agree that criminals who attack pregnant women--including
especially heinous attacks aimed at ending the pregnancy--should be
punished for their actions. But H.R. 1997 is not needed to allow the
vigorous prosecution of anyone doing harm to a pregnant woman. In fact,
the measure does not even mention harm done to pregnant women.
Any bill intended to battle such wanton criminal acts of cruelty
should, as the legislation offered by Representatives Zoe Lofgren and
John Conyers, Jr., does, speak of criminal acts ``interrupting the
normal course of pregnancy'' or ``ending a pregnancy,'' not by trying
to define a fetus as an ``unborn child.''
If the supporters of H.R. 1997 were sincere about protecting a
woman's pregnancy, they would not have stacked this bill full of
language that serves no other purpose than to further their attempts to
eliminate reproductive choice for U.S. women.
H.R. 1997 shifts the focus from violence against women and elevates
the fetus--even a zygote, blastocyst or embryo, perhaps before its
existence is known to the woman--to a status equal with that of the
adult woman, a full member of society, who suffers both the physical
assault and the possible loss of a wanted pregnancy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to reiterate my opposition to H.R. 1997 and the
blatant assault on a women's right to choose.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of H.R.
1997.
Under current Federal law, a person who commits a crime of violence
against a pregnant woman receives no additional punishment for killing
or injuring the woman's unborn child. This is unacceptable.
In my district, the death of Laci Peterson and her unborn son,
Conner, shook the community of Modesto and the Nation. As much as we
all hoped to find Laci alive and well, we now hope for justice. It is
disturbing to think that in cases like hers, real justice cannot be
achieved under existing Federal law.
Fortunately, California already has a similar unborn victims of
violence law, as do 28 other States. But the Peterson case underscores
the need for congressional action. After meeting with Laci's mother,
Sharon Rocha, I agree that we cannot allow the gap in Federal law to
persist.
The simple fact is that pregnant women are vulnerable, and we must do
everything we can to protect them--and everything we can to punish
those who do the unthinkable. We must be tough on crime, and especially
tough on heinous crimes. This is an issue of justice. To me, there is
no other issue here.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today
in opposition to H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Mr.
Speaker, the bill before us today needlessly politicizes a serious
issue. Frankly, I am outraged that members of this body are being put
in a position to take an abortion vote instead of enacting serious and
meaningful laws to prevent and punish violent acts against pregnant
women.
Violent crimes against pregnant women are of a particularly heinous
nature. This is something we can all agree on. However, to bog down
this debate with abortion politics is disingenuous to say the least.
The bill raises questions about the wisdom of my colleagues who support
this bill. Is the goal to address the especially horrendous crime of
harming a pregnant woman, or is the goal to generate an abortion-
related campaign issue?
Supporters of this legislation will come to the floor today and tell
us that their intentions are pure, they are not attempting to undermine

[[Page H659]]

Roe v. Wade. In fact, one prominent Senator stated, ``They say it
undermines abortion rights. It does . . . but that's irrelevant.'' Mr.
Speaker, that is not irrelevant. This is a back door attempt to chip
away at a woman's right to choose and I wish the supporters of this
legislation would just admit it.
Now if the goal of this body is to pass meaningful legislation to
prevent and punish those who assault pregnant women, I would urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Lofgren substitute. This substitute,
based on H.R. 2247, addresses the real issue at hand. The substitute
creates a separate Federal criminal offense for assaulting a pregnant
woman resulting in injury or termination of a pregnancy. This bill
could pass the House by a vote of 434-0, and fly through the Senate,
landing on the President's desk within a week for signature.
We have tried, Mr. Speaker, for the past two Congresses to pass
legislation to protect pregnant women from violence and I have been a
willing partner in those efforts. The injection of abortion politics,
however, is getting in the way of passing meaningful legislation. It is
time to stop playing politics and get something done. We have now
reached a point when we are acting irresponsibly. We all know that the
underlying bill will go nowhere in the Senate.
It is time to do something. Let's save the abortion debate--and the
politicking--for a later date.
I urge my colleagues to support the Lofgren substitute and oppose
this cynical election year tactic.
Mr. McCRANE. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the legislation
before us, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act, which is also known as Laci and Conner's Law.
Over the past year, Americans have followed the investigation into
the deaths of Laci Peterson and her unborn son Conner. Under California
law the killing of both mother and unborn child are crimes.
However, under Federal law this is not the case. For example, if a
criminal attacks a woman on a military base, and kills her unborn
child, he can be charged only with the battery against the woman,
because Federal law does not recognize the unborn child's loss of life.
The mother cannot charge her attacker for the death of the baby she
was carrying. Today, the House will seek to remedy this injustice. Laci
and Conner's Law will establish that if an unborn child is injured or
killed during the commission of an already-defined Federal crime of
violence, then the assailant may be charged with a second offense on
behalf of the second victim, the unborn child.
Twenty-nine states have laws that protect unborn children, but the
Federal government does not. I consider that unacceptable. This
legislation will protect both pregnant mothers and their unborn
children, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA)
is a Trojan Horse. While its sponsors claim that the bill will deter
violence against pregnant women, the legislation actually does violence
to the rights that women have to make reproductive choices. In fact,
this legislation is not about deterring violence against pregnant
women.
Individuals who commit violent acts against pregnant women should be
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and I strongly agree that
Congress should increase penalties for these types of crimes. That is
why I am a cosponsor of the Motherhood Protection Act. This establishes
higher penalties when violent crimes against pregnant women interrupt
the normal course of pregnancy. These stiffer penalties are the same as
penalties in UVVA.
However, UVVA isn't designed to protect pregnant women from violent
acts. It is crafted in order to undermine the right to reproductive
choice by Federally recognizing a fetus with separate legal rights.
That would be a big change that does nothing to deter violence. At this
time, there is nothing in Federal law that gives separate legal rights
to embryos or fetuses. There is no need to establish controversial,
unprecedented Federal rights for embryos. Doing so, as UVVA does,
radically changes the law without making any women safer.
UVVA would not help women when they and their pregnancies suffer as a
result of domestic violence. This proposal would only confuse and
complicate juries. UVVA would make it more difficult to prosecute
criminals than the approach in the Motherhood Protection Act. Congress
should draw a bright line that assaults against pregnant women are
especially wrong and will be prosecuted and punished with increased
penalties. For these reasons, I oppose the Unborn Victims of Violence
Act and urge my colleagues to support the Motherhood Protection Act.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues in
the House to do the right thing--to stand up in defense of expectant
mothers and their unborn children against violent criminals--and
support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
In the day leading up to this debate, ultimately to the vote on this
very important bill, I have to admit--I've struggled.
However, it's not the troubling facts or my position that I've
struggled with Mr. Speaker--instead, I've struggled to find one good
reason (any good reason) why this Congress and this Federal Government
would continue to tell expectant mothers (mothers who have chosen
childbirth and have every intention of seeing it through) that we can
protect you against violent crime--but when it comes to your child . .
. all we can say is, ``sorry, we can't help you.''
Mr. Speaker, as folks back in my home state of Georgia say, ``that's
as wrong as the day is long'' . . . It's high time we did something
about this and passed this legislation.
Yet, despite the facts and the very strong support of the American
people for this bill, we continue to hear from a band of critics on the
other side of the aisle insisting that this debate is really somehow
about abortion . . . that even though this bill says absolutely nothing
about any abortion law anywhere in our nation--that's really what this
bill is all about.
Well, the reaction of this country dentist from Georgia to that kind
of nonsense is pretty simple: hogwash! This bill is about one thing and
one thing only--letting America's expectant mothers know that the child
they have chosen to give birth to is protected by this Federal
Government against the dastardly acts of violent criminals.
Mr. Speaker, I'm not struggling anymore. The answer is clear: there
is no good reason that our government should allow this tragic double-
standard to continue.
Again, I urge my colleagues in this body to do the right thing and
vote in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my
colleagues in support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. It is
imperative to ensure those ``most vulnerable'' in our society are, in
fact, protected from criminal assailants, and that we impose a penalty
when acts of violence against these unborn victims fall under Federal
criminal law. Some claim this measure will infringe on a woman's right
to choose. But currently, 29 States have statutes that criminalize the
killing of a fetus or ``unborn child'', and none of these laws have
affected States' practice of legal abortion. Criminal defendants have
brought many legal challenges to the state unborn victims laws, based
on Roe v. Wade and other constitutional arguments, but all such
challenges have been rejected by State and Federal courts. We cannot
turn our backs on mothers, fathers, and grandparents across our Nation
who lose unborn babies due to heinous acts of violence every year. This
will serve as an additional deterrent to crimes against pregnant women.
I commend the sponsors and leadership for bringing this to the floor
and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, today we passed legislation to protect the
unborn from acts of violence. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, H.R.
1997, sends a clear and strong statement that anyone who injures or
kills unborn children is committing a crime. I wish my fellow
colleagues would join me in making as equally strong a statement when
it comes to injuring our children by injecting them or their mothers or
their fathers with vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative
Thimerosal.
Over the last several years, I have conducted 19 hearings on vaccine
safety and the detrimental health effects of other mercury-containing
medical products. On May 21, 2003, my subcommittee's 80-page report
entitled, ``Mercury in Medicine--Taking Unnecessary Risks'' was
published in its entirety in the Congressional Record. This study was
the result of a 3-year investigation initiated during my tenure as the
chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, and it outlines
the undeniable connection between mercury in all its forms and possible
permanent health risks, including brain and kidney damage.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, developing fetuses
and young children are the most vulnerable and susceptible to the
potential harms of mercury damage. Because of this, a joint statement
was issued in July 1999 by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the
U.S. Public Health Service, ``recommending removal of Thimerosa from
vaccines as soon as possible (CDC, 1999).'' It is now 2004, and there
are still at least 3 vaccines on the pediatric schedule that still
contain Thimerosal (flu, Hib/HepB, and DtaP).
In 2001, the Institute of Medicine conducted an Immunization Safety
Review meeting on safety concerns regarding Thimerosal. In their
report, it was concluded in their ``Recommendations Regarding the
Public Health Response'' section that ``. . . a causal relationship
between Thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders
. . . is biologically plausible.''
I believe that it is good public policy and simple common sense for
this House to

[[Page H660]]

strongly assert that all United States Health Agencies should take
concrete steps to eliminate the usage of mercury in any capacity,
particularly from all vaccines and dental amalgams. I believe that it
is good public policy and simple common sense for this House to
strongly assert that any vaccinations provided under or purchased for
the Vaccines for Children Program be completely devoid of Thimerosal.
Numerous scientists have testified that there is a simple way to do
this, and that is to only use single-shot vials--those little glass
containers. Manufacturers would not have to put Thimerosal or any other
preservative in their vaccines if they switched to the single-shot
vials. Moving to single-shot vials could have an enormously positive
impact in helping to minimize, perhaps even eliminate, some cases of
Alzheimer's, autism, and other neurological disorders linked to
mercury.
This is something that the pharmaceutical companies must address. Our
Food and Drug Administration and health agencies are asleep at the
switch. They are letting children and adults be damaged day after day
after day by allowing mercury to continue to be put into vaccines for
adults and children.
We have a growing number of people who are being diagnosed with
Alzheimer's, a dramatically growing number. We have 1 in 10,000
children 10 years ago that were autistic, now it is 1 in 150. And
scientists before my Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on
Human Rights and Wellness say it is in large part because of the
mercury in the vaccines. We have to get the FDA on the stick. They have
to demand that pharmaceutical products containing mercury have the
mercury taken out of them very, very quickly. If not, we are going to
continue to have an epidemic on our hands that America does not need
and should not tolerate.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1997, the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act and want to thank my colleague from
Pennsylvania for introducing it.
Sadly, in America today 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. America's mothers and their unborn children deserve better. When
the crime involves two victims, the law must protect and provide
justice for both.
The legislation we are considering today, H.R. 1997 would make it a
separate Federal crime to hurt or kill an unborn child during the
commission of a Federal crime against a pregnant woman. Over half of
the States in our country currently recognize both the mother and the
unborn child as victims of violent crimes.
In fact, just last week the Commonwealth of Kentucky enacted a fetal
homicide law in response to public attention to a recent tragedy in
that State where 18-year-old Ashley Lyons and her unborn son, Landon,
were killed.
As both a strong supporter of victim's rights and a pro-life
advocator, I recognize that the voices of members of families who have
lost loved ones--born and unborn--in crimes of violence, are an
important part of the debate over this important bill.
Carol Lyons, Ashley's mother, says,

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
goodbye for the last time and closed the casket.

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed this bill in 1999
and again in 2001. In both cases, it was never brought up for a vote in
the Senate.
However, this year we finally have an opportunity to finally enact
this legislation into law. Recent violent crimes involving the murder
of young pregnant women and their unborn children have captured
national attention and brought to light the judicial plight family
members of victims face when they seek justice.
I also strongly oppose the substitute amendment being offered by
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. Her amendment fails to recognize the unborn
child as a victim of a crime, even in circumstances when the
perpetrator acts with specific intent to kill the unborn child. A vote
in favor of the Lofgren substitute is a vote to codify the doctrine
that an attack on a pregnant woman has only a single victim, even when
the mother survives and the baby dies.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, as legislators, it is our responsibility to
stand up and protect innocent members of society. Presently, an
individual who commits a Federal crime 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 pregnant women and their
unborn babies. The current Federal law is unjust, and Laci and Conner's
Law will protect women from further abuse. This new law will send the
right message that both a mother and a child should be protected.
Right now, the law says that the pregnant mother is the only victim
in a crime, and nothing could be further from the truth. There are two
victims harmed in this crime, the mother and her unborn baby. As a
cosponsor of this legislation, I will work to ensure it is enacted into
law this year.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). All time for general debate on
this bill having expired, it is now in order to consider the amendment
printed in part B of House Report 108-427 by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Ms. Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Ms. Lofgren:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Motherhood Protection Act of
2004''.

SEC. 2. CRIMES AGAINST A WOMAN THAT AFFECT THE NORMAL COURSE
OF HER PREGNANCY.

(a) Whoever engages in any violent or assaultive conduct
against a pregnant woman resulting in the conviction of the
person so engaging for a violation of any of the provisions
of law set forth in subsection (c), and thereby causes an
interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy resulting
in prenatal injury (including termination of the pregnancy),
shall, in addition to any penalty imposed for the violation,
be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--
(1) if the relevant provision of law set forth in
subsection (c) is set forth in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of
that subsection, a fine under title 18, United States Code,
or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, but if
the interruption terminates the pregnancy, a fine under title
18, United States Code, or imprisonment for any term of years
or for life, or both; and
(2) if the relevant provision of law is set forth in
subsection (c)(4), the punishment shall be such punishment
(other than the death penalty) as the court martial may
direct.
(c) The provisions of law referred to in subsection (a) are
the following:
(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242,
245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1), and (i),
924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121,
1153(a), 1201(a), 1203(a), 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512,
1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and
(a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119,
2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332,
2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of title 18, United States
Code.
(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970
(21 U.S.C. 848).
(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2283).
(4) Sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926,
and 928 of title 10, United States Code (articles 118,
119(a), 119(b)(2), 120(a), 122, 124, 126, and 128).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 529, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear, on its face, the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act appears to be a tool to prevent assault against pregnant
women and nonconsensual termination of pregnancy. Upon closer
examination, it is obvious that the purpose of the bill is to conflict
with the core principles of Roe v. Wade.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act focuses on, legally recognizes a
fetus, an embryo, a blastocyst, a fertilized egg as a person with
rights and interests separate from and equal to those of the woman.
Today I offer a substitute that my colleagues and I hope can unify
Members on both sides of the debate over choice to achieve a very
important goal, the deterrence and punishment of violent acts against
pregnant women.
According to the purported goals of H.R. 1997, that is our common
ground, but it is clear that the purpose of H.R. 1997 is not actually
to achieve the purported common goal of protecting pregnant women from
assault. If that were the case, we would all vote today

[[Page H661]]

for the Lofgren substitute and begin to ensure that women across the
country are safe from violence.
The Lofgren substitute does not threaten Roe v. Wade, but instead
creates a new separate offense for any violent or assaultive conduct
against a pregnant woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy.
The substitute provides that any termination in the pregnancy is
punishable by a fine and imprisonment of up to 20 years, and if the
pregnancy is terminated, even if unintentionally, the assailant can be
sentenced to life in prison. These penalties are even tougher than
those provided for in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
Those of us who have experienced a miscarriage understand a very
essential truth: The loss is something you never forget. Whether the
woman is 6 weeks pregnant or 6 months pregnant, the loss is acutely
felt by that woman, and it deserves the full penalty that the law can
provide.
Penalties under H.R. 1997, however, vary depending upon the
underlying crime resulting in inconsistent penalties for the same
horrific crime. In fact, under H.R. 1997, if a postal worker was
assaulted and there is a resulting injury to her pregnancy, there is
only a maximum penalty of 3 years; but if the same assault happened to
another Federal employee, her assailant could get up to 8 years in
prison under H.R. 1997. Why should the penalty for injury to one
pregnant woman over another depend upon where she works? It defies
logic and reason.
Unlike the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Lofgren substitute has
tough, consistent penalties for the same horrific crime, regardless of
irrelevant circumstances like the place of employment. A loss or injury
to a pregnancy is the same loss to a woman no matter where she works.
Mr. Speaker, advocates for H.R. 1997 say their bill is about
protecting women from violence. In fact, the bill ignores women. H.R.
1997 does not address the woman nor the assault committed against her.
Under H.R. 1997, there is a possibility that the crime against the
woman could go unpunished because there is no conviction requirement
for the underlying crime. How can the other side say they are
preventing crime against pregnant women when you ignore her and the
crime against her?
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is the Lofgren substitute does not
needlessly interject the abortion debate and exploit what is concededly
a matter of a pregnant woman's right to a safe, healthy and free from
horrific acts of violence pregnancy.
Although many have said that the underlying bill has nothing to do
with abortion, I think it is important to look at what some of the
proponents of the antichoice movement have said about the bill, and I
would like to quote Samuel Casey, the executive director of the
Christian Legal Society, who said last year, ``In as many areas as we
can, we want to put on the books that the embryo is a person. That sets
the stage for a jurist to acknowledge that human beings at any stage of
development deserve protection, even protection that would trump a
woman's interest in terminating a pregnancy.''
Joe Cook, vice president of the American Association of Pro Life
Obstetricians & Gynecologists, said last year, ``We have to approach
this in a way that is doable, a step at a time. This bill is aimed at
establishing that a fetus in utero is a human being and has human
rights.''
Finally, Senator Orrin Hatch said last year, ``They say it undermines
abortion rights; it does, but that is irrelevant.'' Irrelevant perhaps
in the other body, but not to me.
Mr. Speaker, I support legislation that has the goal of protecting a
pregnant woman from violence. I cannot do so through legislation that
would also undermine other extremely important rights of women, like
the right to choose. That is antithetical to the protection and safety
of women.
I hope we can come together on this substitute. Last Congress there
were a number of antichoice Members of the House that voted for the
substitute, understanding that the penalties are more severe and would
provide more complete protection for women. I urge those individuals to
do so again to show this country that Congress is serious about
protecting pregnant women from violence.
We have in this country and in this House strong disagreement about
who gets to decide whether a pregnancy will be brought to term or not,
the Congress or the woman. That debate is going to go on for a long
time, but it does not have to be part of this discussion. We can come
together to protect women against violence without having the argument
about abortion involved in that effort. I hope that we can come
together to embrace common ground on what I think could be a moment of
triumph for this Congress and for the American people in standing
against violence against women.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the substitute amendment should be soundly defeated as
it would throw salt into the wounds of those parents who have implored
this Congress to recognize under Federal law the loss of their loved,
unborn child.
These mothers are not seeking recognition of the violence they have
suffered alone. They are seeking recognition of the violence their
unborn children have suffered as well. They are seeking recognition of
the loss of their unborn child.
H.R. 1997 recognizes that loss; the substitute does not. This House
has defeated this substitute amendment each time it has been brought
up, with increasing margins during the 106th and 107th Congresses. We
should increase that margin today.
A recent Fox News poll asked, ``If Scott Peterson is convicted of
killing his pregnant wife, Laci, do you think he should be charged with
one count of homicide for murdering his wife, or two counts of homicide
for murdering both his wife and his unborn son?'' An overwhelming 84
percent of the American people responded that two counts, not one,
should be brought.
These results are confirmed by two other recent polls that show
support for two separate charges for violent criminals who harm mothers
and their unborn children. Support for a separate charge for an unborn
victim is 84 percent, according to a Newsweek poll, and 79 percent,
including 69 percent of those who describe themselves as prochoice,
according to another Fox News poll conducted in July. Each poll found
that less than 1 in 10 Americans disagree.
I would ask my colleagues to join with the overwhelming majority of
Americans who have responded to these polls, including those who
describe themselves as being prochoice, to reject this amendment and
not join with the very small minority, less than 1 in 10 of those who
are polled, who would support the one-victim approach.

{time} 1230

This substitute amendment embodies the extreme ideology of those who
are unwilling to recognize an unborn child in the law in any context
whatsoever. The term ``unborn child'' as used in H.R. 1997 has been
widely used and accepted by judges, including the Supreme Court, and
Justice Blackmun, the author of the Roe v. Wade decision itself. The
term ``unborn child'' has been widely tested in court and has sustained
all constitutional challenges in terms of a fetal homicide law.
Removing that term and replacing it with the vague and untested
language of the substitute would accomplish nothing, while risking
grave confusion and jeopardizing the conviction of violent Federal
criminals. The abstract language in the substitute, which points to
injuries to a ``pregnancy,'' ignores the fact that violent criminals
can and do inflict injuries on a real human being in his or her
mother's womb. If an assault is committed on a Member of Congress and
her unborn child subsequently suffers from a disability because of the
assault, that injury cannot accurately be described as an abstract
injury to a pregnancy. It is an injury to an unborn child. The bill
recognizes that. The substitute does not.
Also, unlike the language of H.R. 1997, the substitute contains no
exceptions for abortion-related conduct, for conduct of the mother, or
for medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child. This
omission leaves

[[Page H662]]

the substitute amendment bare to the charge that it would permit the
prosecution of mothers who have abortions who inflict harm upon
themselves and their unborn children or doctors who incidentally kill
or injure unborn children during the provision of medical treatment.
For that reason, the substitute amendment will certainly be subject to
a successful constitutional challenge. The underlying bill has been
tested and proven constitutional.
Today's debate is not about penalties. It is about victims. H.R. 1997
recognizes unborn victims of violence. The substitute does not. In the
name of unborn victims, including Conner Peterson, Heaven Lashay Pace,
Zachariah Marciniak, Landon Lyons and the others who are not named
today but are known and loved and missed by their surviving family, the
substitute should be soundly defeated and the bill passed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would note that on line 6 on page 1 of the amendment, it notes that
whoever engages in any violent or assaultive conduct against a pregnant
woman resulting in the conviction of the person so engaging does not
include an abortion that is legal because of Roe v. Wade.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today strongly supporting the
Lofgren substitute. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is right, my
colleagues and I have considered an unbelievable number of antichoice
proposals over the last few years, including 200 since the Republicans
took over the House of Representatives.
These proposals have troubled me; but this bill, the bill that we are
considering today, is perhaps the most disconcerting of them all.
Instead of openly admitting what they are attempting to do to a woman's
reproductive freedoms, proponents of this bill are exploiting a
senseless and tragic crime to make their true intentions hidden. Let me
be clear. We all oppose violence against women, and we all understand
that a violent attack on a pregnant woman is an especially heinous act
that deserves a uniquely harsh punishment. But that is not what the
underlying legislation is about.
Our constituents deserve an honest debate about this proposal and
some very honest information. I am sure that many people assume that
this legislation if it were approved would have an impact on the tragic
case in California after which this case is named. People also probably
assume it would create an effective new tool to prosecute many domestic
abusers who harm their pregnant wives or girlfriends. That is simply
not true. Women are the victims of violence across the country every
day, but rarely does this violence fall in the jurisdiction of Federal
courts. Unless a fetus is harmed in the commission of a violent Federal
crime, this bill will not apply.
Considering that this new law would rarely be applied, you may
wonder, then, why are we here today talking about it? We are here to
undermine the fundamental protections of Roe v. Wade with platitudes
about violence against women thrown on as window dressing. If this bill
passes, a 2-hour-old fertilized egg will have the same rights as the
woman bearing it. Antichoice forces have been very open and honest
about their strategy for turning back the clock on reproductive freedom
in this country. In fact, we have heard many of the underlying bill's
proponents tell you that the egg is a human. By declaring that even a
fertilized egg is a person, proponents are laying the groundwork for
undermining women's ability to make their own medical choices and
decisions.
Thankfully, we have an opportunity to address horrific acts of
violence against pregnant women without undermining the woman's ability
to control her own body. This ability is through the Lofgren
substitute, which establishes appropriately harsh penalties for those
who violently harm pregnant women without reducing her rights to that
of a fertilized egg. We should not be debating this today. We should be
debating and approving policies that will help keep every woman safe in
her own home and ensure that every pregnancy is a healthy one. I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting the Lofgren substitute and
opposing the underlying bill. This bill is nothing but an exploitive
attempt to end reproductive freedom.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. This substitute amendment should be soundly defeated. The
substitute amendment appears to operate as a mere sentence enhancement
authorizing punishment in addition to any penalty imposed for the
predicate offense. That is most unfortunate. No sentencing enhancement
can adequately express society's disapproval for the distinct loss that
occurs when a mother's unborn child is harmed or killed by a violent
criminal. A loss that is both unique and uniquely offensive to both a
loving expectant mother and to the vast majority of Americans warrants
a unique and separate offense under the criminal law. H.R. 1997
provides for a separate offense. The substitute does not.
Indeed, the witnesses we heard from in committee supporting H.R.
1997, this bill, have told us that they are not Republicans or
Democrats, they are not lawyers, they are people who have lost unborn
children to violence, and they want those children treated
appropriately under the law. That is precisely what H.R. 1997 does. The
substitute does not.
Sharon Rocha, the mother of Laci Peterson and the grandmother of
unborn victim, Conner Peterson, has written that ``the Lofgren proposal
would enshrine in law the offensive concept that such crimes have only
a single victim, the pregnant woman.''
Shiwona Pace, whose unborn child, Heaven, was brutally murdered by
three hired hitmen, has said, ``It seems to me that any Congressman who
votes for the one victim amendment is really saying that nobody died
that night. And that is a lie.''
Those who focus this debate on penalties and abstract terms such as
harm to a pregnancy rather than to an unborn child misunderstand the
purposes of the criminal law. The criminal law does not exist only to
punish criminals; it exists to lend dignity to victims, including
unborn victims. It is an expression not only of society's disapproval
of certain conduct, but of its recognition of the victims of such
conduct and the manner in which such victims should be recognized.
Creating a separate offense for harm to an unborn child forces all of
us, including potential criminals, to consider the act of harming an
unborn child as an independent evil.
A Newsweek poll found that only 9 percent of those surveyed, less
than one in 10 Americans, oppose a separate offense for killing an
unborn child. Those 9 percent of Americans should be heard, of course;
and they have been heard through this substitute amendment. But they
must not win, as the law exists in large part to reflect America's
overwhelmingly shared values, and those shared values support separate
charges for the killing and injuring of wanted, unborn children.
I ask, looking at this picture, this is Tracy Marciniak that we have
talked about. This is her unborn child here, Zachariah. Tracy was
attacked by her husband when she was 8 months pregnant with this child.
Tracy survived her physical injuries. The child died that night. I ask
you, this is the funeral of this child. There is Tracy holding her
child. How many victims do we see in this photograph? I think it is
clear, there are two victims in that photograph. This legislation that
we are addressing here today recognizes two victims. The substitute
amendment does not.
The terminology in the substitute amendment is hopelessly confusing;
and if adopted, it will almost certainly jeopardize any prosecution
involving the injuring or killing of an unborn child during the
commission of a violent crime. The substitute amendment provides an
enhanced penalty for ``interruption to the normal course of the
pregnancy resulting in prenatal injury, including termination of the
pregnancy.'' The amendment then authorizes greater punishment for an
interruption that terminates the pregnancy than it does for a mere
interruption of a pregnancy. What exactly is

[[Page H663]]

the difference between an interruption of a pregnancy and an
interruption that terminates the pregnancy? The substitute does not
say. Does any interruption of a pregnancy not necessarily result in a
termination of the pregnancy? Or have the supporters of this amendment
somehow succeeded in mastering the science of suspended animation? By
defining an interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy, the
substitute is either science fiction or simply impossible for Federal
prosecutors to decipher and apply.
The substitute amendment is a moral failure in that it refuses to
recognize that unborn children can be victims of violence. It is a
drafting failure in that its ambiguous terminology would leave
prosecutors at a loss as to how to administer it. And it is a
constitutional failure in that it contains no exceptions for abortion-
related conduct. The substitute should be soundly defeated.
In my view, it all comes down and this entire debate is best summed
up in a single photograph. Whether or not there are two victims in this
photograph or only one is the issue that is at hand. The majority in
this House, as we have had it here twice before and it has passed with
pretty overwhelming numbers, the majority of us see the clear
indication in this picture that there are two victims. The substitute
amendment, and it is craftily worded, but ambiguous enough that
prosecutors have indicated that successfully prosecuting an offense
under the substitute is virtually impossible; but the people that
support that particular substitute amendment are indicating in essence
that there is only one victim here. I think common sense should
prevail. There are two victims.
I would strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the substitute
amendment and pass the underlying bill.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would just note that just for corrective
purposes, the Lofgren substitute does provide for a separate offense,
not a sentence enhancement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms.
Baldwin), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Lofgren substitute to H.R. 1997. Violence against women remains
epidemic in our society. According to a Commonwealth Fund survey,
nearly one out of every three adult women experiences at least one
physical assault by a partner during adulthood. Acts of violence
committed against pregnant women are especially heartbreaking and
abhorrent. Congress should and must focus sharply on efforts addressing
this issue.

{time} 1245

But we can address this issue without tangling it in the abortion
debate. And the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Lofgren) substitute
does exactly that. It focuses on the crime of violence against the
pregnant woman without undermining a woman's right to choose. The
substitute creates a separate and distinct crime for any violent
assault against a pregnant woman that harms or ends her pregnancy, in
addition to the assault of the pregnant woman.
Most importantly, this substitute avoids the issue of fetal rights
and fetal personhood. It correctly recognizes that the pregnant woman
is the primary victim of an assault that causes harm to, or termination
of, her pregnancy. In this way, the substitute we consider today
accomplishes the stated goals of the underlying bill, the deterrence
and punishment of violent acts against pregnant women, without bogging
us down in the abortion debate.
I urge my colleagues to ask themselves why H.R. 1997 treats an embryo
or a fetus at any stage of development as an individual with extensive
legal rights distinct from the mother. How would establishing this
legal framework reduce the occurrence of crimes against pregnant women?
The answer is that the underlying bill is not directed to the pregnant
woman. Instead, it unnecessarily opens up an abortion debate.
I applaud the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Lofgren) efforts of
addressing the serious issue of violence against pregnant women in a
way that accomplishes the goal of reducing this violence in a
nonaggressive manner, and I urge my colleagues to support this
substitute.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time as well as the opportunity to debate the substitute.
This bill, the underlying bill, does address the rights of women. We
have heard many who oppose it and support the substitute state that it
does not. And it clearly allows a woman to seek punishment from the
perpetrator of a crime against her that she may survive and that may
cause the death of her unborn child. A woman who has made a decision to
carry a child has that taken away from her during a violent act.
Somehow I do not see how this reduces her rights.
The Lofgren substitute, however, fails entirely to recognize unborn
children as victims of violent crime; in fact, transforming the child's
injuries to what amount to mere abstractions. The terminology in this
substitute is virtually incomprehensible, and if adopted, it will
almost certainly jeopardize any prosecution for injuring or killing an
unborn child during the commission of a violent crime against the
mother.
The substitute amendment provides an enhanced penalty for what is
called interruption of the normal course of pregnancy, resulting in
prenatal injury, including termination of pregnancy. The amendment then
authorizes greater punishment for the interruption that terminates the
pregnancy than it does for a mere interruption of the pregnancy. But
what exactly is the difference between the termination and the
interruption of a pregnancy? It implies that a pregnancy can stop and
start again, but does not an interruption of a pregnancy necessarily
result in the termination of the pregnancy? And what does the phrase
``termination of the pregnancy'' really mean here? Does it only mean
that the unborn child died, or could it also mean that the child was
born prematurely even without suffering any injury? These ambiguities
make the substitute impossible to comprehend and certainly difficult to
enforce.
Second, the substitute amendment appears to operate as a mere
sentence enhancement, authorizing punishment in addition to any penalty
imposed for the crime against the mother. Yet the language suggests
there should be a separate offense for killing or injuring the unborn
child, but then it does not allow the prosecutor to proceed with a
crime against the unborn child. Is a separate charge necessary for the
enhanced penalty to be imposed? The substitute amendment simply does
not make this clear.
It also mischaracterizes the nature of the injury that is inflicted
when an unborn child is killed or injured during the commission of such
a violent crime. Under the current language of the bill, a separate
offense is committed whenever an individual causes the death or injury
of a child who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place. The
substitute would transform the death of the unborn child again into an
abstraction, ``terminating a pregnancy.'' Bodily injury inflicted upon
the child would become a mere prenatal injury. Both injuries are
described as resulting from the interruption of the normal course of
pregnancy. These abstractions ignore the fact that the death of the
unborn child occurs when a pregnancy is violently terminated by a
criminal.
The substitute also fails to recognize that a prenatal injury is an
injury inflicted upon a human being in the womb of his or her mother.
If an assault is committed on a pregnant woman, and her child
subsequently suffers from a disability because of the assault, the
injury cannot be accurately described as an abstract injury to a
pregnancy. It is only an injury to a human being. Our bill recognizes
that; the substitute does not.
The substitute is fatally flawed and should be rejected.
Sharon Rocha, the mother of Laci Peterson, the grandmother of unborn
victim Conner Peterson, has written that ``the Lofgren proposal would
enshrine in law the offensive concept that such crimes have only a
single victim, the pregnant woman.'' The substitute amendment embodies
the extreme ideology of those who are unwilling to

[[Page H664]]

recognize the unborn child under law in any way.
Our approach works. Twenty-nine States have laws that recognize two
victims. They have been challenged in court and have survived. Reject
this substitute. Support the bill that will provide for two victims,
and one that we know that works, and one that is not offensive to the
families of these victims.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have left a hearing to come to the floor
to congratulate the gentlewoman from California for coming forward with
a bill that does what the great majority of the American people want to
see us do today.
Is the point here to penalize crimes against pregnant women or to
give personhood to the fetus? I think the majority would say it is time
this Congress got around to recognizing that when, in fact, a violent
crime is committed against a pregnant woman, that is a crime against
the family, and we should have done something about it long ago.
But what we are doing here with the bill that is on the floor is
forcing some Members to vote against the bill, a bill that would
otherwise have nearly universal approval in this House. It reminds me
of the years it took us to pass the Violence Against Women Act because
we nitpicked at it, at this, that, and the other. And it must have been
6 or 7 years before the Violence Against Women Act passed in the face
of rising violence against women.
We are doing the very same thing with crimes against pregnant women.
It is a terrible act to commit a violent crime against a pregnant
woman. We should not leave this place unless we come to an agreement
on, in fact, dealing with that crime and that crime alone.
What the majority is trying to do here I want to say to them I do not
think they can constitutionally do anyway. The majority cannot confer
personhood on a fetus in the face of Roe v. Wade. They can keep coming
to the floor all they want to, but I do not think that they can
successfully do that by statute. But we can keep a substitute that is
critically important from coming out of the Congress by insisting on
conferring personhood against the will of the majority of people, of
the majority of the United States, who support the common-sense
approach to choice.
The number of pregnant women who have been murdered has been grossly
underreported because they are reported as murders. It is time we did
something about it. This is a separate offense. It is a separate
criminal offense. It does what needs to be done. I congratulate the
gentlewoman for getting us to where we need to be today, justice for
women, finally, on violence against those who are pregnant.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker to close on
this side. Does the gentlewoman from California have any further
speakers?
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman has 15 minutes.
Ms. LOFGREN. Do I have the right to close, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The majority manager has the right to close.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition
to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and in support of the substitute
bill offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the
Motherhood Protection Act.
I believe very strongly that violence against pregnant women is one
of the most morally reprehensible crimes. Any act of violence against
pregnant women should be condemned, and I support legislation that
protects women and their unborn fetuses from violence.
However, I have to rise and oppose the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
that we are considering on the floor today because it jeopardizes a
woman's right to choose and fails to protect women from violence. This
bill is a blatant attempt to undermine a woman's right to choose,
disguised, sadly, as an effort to protect women from violence. Under
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, for the first time anywhere in
Federal law, an unborn fetus at any stage of development will be
treated as a person that can be an independent victim of a crime. It is
not that hard to figure out that it is a direct attack on a woman's
right to choose as established in Roe v. Wade.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is also inadequate for protecting
women from violence. If the proponents of this bill were, in fact,
sincere in their desire to prevent harm to unborn fetuses, they would
start by preventing harm to pregnant women. It is very telling that the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act is silent on the issue of preventing and
punishing violent crimes against women and that the proponents of this
bill will not accept the substitute bill offered by Ms. Lofgren, the
Motherhood Protection Act.
The gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Lofgren) substitute provides
women and fetuses with the protections they need. It creates a separate
Federal crime. It is not merely an enhancement. It is a separate
Federal crime for harm to pregnant women and imposes a penalty of up to
20 years in prison for injury to embryos or fetuses. If a woman's
pregnancy is terminated in an attack, the penalty can be up to life in
prison.
The Lofgren substitute is a far better bill than the Unborn Victims
of Violence Act because it protects women, it protects fetuses, and it
still preserves a woman's right to choose. I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to show women in this country that we will protect
them from violence by voting no on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
and voting yes on the superior Lofgren substitute.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this on my left is a picture of Tracy Marciniak holding
her son at his funeral. She met with me. She met with other Members.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) just spoke of this, to tell us
what happened to her and to her son Zachariah. Minimum time was given
to the attacker, her husband, and there was no penalty whatsoever
imposed for the killing of this little baby. Tracy has written to
Congress, and I hope you all stand up and take notice, and said
``Congress should approve the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Opponents
of the bill have put forth a counterproposal, known as the Lofgren
amendment. I have read it,'' she goes on to say, ``and it is offensive
to me because it says that there is only one victim in such a crime,
the woman who is pregnant.
``Please hear me,'' she goes on to say. ``On the night of February 8,
1992, there were two victims. I was nearly killed. Little Zachariah
died.
``Any lawmaker who is thinking of voting for the Lofgren `one-victim'
amendment should first look at this picture of me holding my dead son
at his funeral. Then I would say to that Representative, `If you really
think that nobody died that night, then vote for the `one-victim'
amendment.' ''
Mr. Speaker, the Lofgren amendment stripped of its surface appeal
trappings and enhanced penalty does have one proabortion strategic
objective, and that is denial. Denial that an unborn child has inherent
dignity, denial that an unborn child has worth, denial that an unborn
child has innate value. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey)
said a few moments ago in this debate we all oppose violence against
women. I thank her for that admission.
Back in the 106th Congress I was prime sponsor of legislation that
included the Violence Against Women Act, the 5-year authorization. The
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who was then chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, worked to craft language that throws the
book at those who commit violence against women, while providing
shelters, and so many others worked on that. It was division B of that
bill. I was the prime sponsor. So no one on that side of that divide
takes a back seat to anyone that says that somehow we are not against
violence against women.
The gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) said a moment ago that

[[Page H665]]

the woman is a victim and not the only victim. There is another victim,
the baby. And I just want to say again, talking about the gentlewoman
from California's (Ms. Woolsey) comments, while we are all against
violence against women, we are not all against violence against unborn
children. And this bill offered by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the
others who are leading the effort on this are saying a mugger or killer
does not have an unfettered right or access to an unborn child to kill
him or her.

{time} 1300

The amniotic sac is a protective covering over an unborn child, but
it is not made of Kevlar. Those sacs can be pierced so easily by a
knife or by a bullet, and we are saying when a knife or a bullet or a
fist pierces and kills a little baby like Zachariah, there ought to be
a separate offense. Yes, throw the book at the mugger for any offense
that he commits against a woman, we are all for that, but do not deny a
penalty for a child who has been killed by that mugger.
Vote against the Lofgren amendment and for the Hart bill.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the substitute that I have offered creates a separate
Federal criminal offense for assaulting a pregnant woman resulting in
injury or termination of her pregnancy, without entangling the issue in
our disagreement about abortion and the woman's right to choose.
In addition to recognizing the horrendous underlying crime of assault
on a pregnant woman, it recognizes the horrific crime of assault on a
pregnant woman that results in the interruption or termination of a
pregnancy. It creates an offense that protects pregnant women and
punishes violence without conflicting with the core principles of Roe
v. Wade.
The substitute provides consistent penalties for the same horrific
crime. It provides for a consistent maximum 20-year sentence for injury
and a consistent maximum life sentence for causing the termination of a
woman's pregnancy. It requires a conviction for the underlying criminal
offense, ensuring the crime against the woman is also punished, and it
focuses on the assault of violence committed against the pregnant
woman, providing a deterrent effect for violence against women.
I am sure that the Members of this body who oppose a woman's right to
choose also oppose violence against women. There is no disagreement on
that score. All I am saying with my substitute is that we have the
ability to come together in this substitute against violence against
women without engaging in our very serious disagreement about choice.
I think it has been made clear by the proponents of this bill that it
is about choice. That is why this bill, the underlying bill, was
referred and considered by the Subcommittee on the Constitution, not
the Subcommittee on Crime, in the Committee on the Judiciary, because
it is about the Constitution.
The point of the underlying bill is to undercut Roe v. Wade. I think
Roe v. Wade provides important protections for the women of this
country. I am 56 years old, and I remember as an undergraduate in
college young women who had to seek abortions from illegal providers or
go to another country. I know women who almost lost their lives.
Thankfully, because the Supreme Court has now recognized that women
have the right to make choices about their own reproduction, women now
do not have to seek illegal or dangerous health care solutions when
they have made a decision that they cannot have a child.
I think that Roe v. Wade, by allowing women to make decisions about
their own lives, is an important principle and an important defense for
the freedom of American women, and I do not think American women should
give up their freedom in order to get protection from violence. That is
what I think the underlying intent of H.R. 1997 is. I think that is why
the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which represents
organizations and domestic violence shelters in all 50 States, opposes
H.R. 1997.
So I hope the Lofgren substitute will be approved, and I hope that we
can come together to stand against violence and for freedom for
American women.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms.
DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Lofgren
amendment and in opposition to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
Mr. Speaker, the majority of Americans are prochoice, and they depend
on us to protect a woman's right to choose, while at the same time
working to make abortion rare by making sure that all women have a full
range of reproductive choices. They depend on us to pass legislation
that will protect their reproductive freedom, and they depend on us to
know the difference between legislation that truly protects women and
legislation that is discussed as something that it is not, like, for
example, the bill that is before us now.
Today, Members of Congress who truly care about the issue of violence
against women can put their words into action by voting for the Lofgren
substitute. The substitute provides for the deterrence and punishment
of violent acts against pregnant women, and it does so while completely
avoiding the controversial issues of abortion. It creates a new
separate crime with tough penalties, up to 20 years to life, for an
assault that causes the termination of a pregnancy.
So my colleagues can choose to vote for the substitute and actually
accomplish a goal they care about, or they can go with the underlying
bill, which is nothing but a poorly disguised vehicle to undermine Roe
v. Wade.
We are not fooled by this legislation. Our constituents will not be
fooled by this legislation. If Members of the House really care about
taking steps to protect pregnant women and punish the people who commit
horrible acts of violence against them, we will all join together and
vote for the Lofgren substitute.
There is only one real difference between the substitute and the
underlying bill, and it is this one thing that reveals the true goal of
H.R. 1997. The underlying bill creates a Federal criminal offense that
provides a pregnancy from conception to birth with the legal status
separate from that of the woman. Regardless of what we are hearing
today from proponents of the legislation, there is only one reason to
vote for this bill, and that is to support defining a fetus or a
fertilized egg, for that matter, as a person.
If the supporters of the legislation want to debate the merits of
abortion, let us do it out in the open. But they should be embarrassed
about cloaking their true intent in an issue that we all agree upon,
protecting pregnant women from violence.
We keep hearing those who support the bill talk about two victims,
but what they are omitting is the fact that this bill does not mention
the main victim, the woman, another indication this bill is not really
about two victims at all. The Lofgren substitute is the bill that truly
focuses on women, because it creates a Federal criminal offense for
harm to a pregnant woman.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Lofgren substitute
and no on final passage.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing this bill
to the floor. It is a very important bill, and it is a very timely
bill.
This bill has passed the House twice in two different Congresses. It
is a bill that desperately needs to become law, because, Mr. Speaker,
Laci Peterson had a son. He was never born, he never spoke a word or
took his first steps, but he was real. Whoever killed Laci Peterson
also killed her son, and to deny that is to deny truth. That unborn
victims of violence are separate victims of violence is not a matter of
interpretation, it is a matter of plain fact. A child could tell you
that a man who kills a pregnant woman and her unborn child takes two
lives.
Unborn victims of violence feel their own pain, suffer their own
wounds and die their own excruciating deaths, and with this legislation
before us, we have the opportunity to say so. We have the opportunity
to say that in this Nation

[[Page H666]]

unborn children targeted by violent men are guaranteed justice under
the law, just as their murderers are guaranteed justice under the law.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a matter of common sense and
common decency. It should and will pass this body by an overwhelming,
bipartisan majority, and make right in the law what is now blatantly
and indefensibly wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I do not question the motives of those who plan to vote
no. But to those who oppose this bill and support the substitute,
support increased penalties for attacks against pregnant women without
acknowledging the second victim of such attacks, I do ask this: Why?
Why are the attacks against pregnant women like Laci Peterson so
egregious? Why should they merit harsher penalties? Why do all people
in all cultures, naturally, instinctively, recoil at such attacks? It
is the vulnerability of the pregnant mother, to be sure, but it is also
the innocence and the very being of the unborn child.
Civilized society has an obligation to punish injustice, no matter
the size, strength or political inconvenience of its victim. Laci
Peterson's son may have been robbed from this world before he ever
touched it, but, Mr. Speaker, he was here. Today he may be looking down
on us from the nurseries of Heaven, protected for eternity by the God
who knit him together in the womb, nestled in the loving embrace of the
mother who gave him his name, but before Conner Peterson was taken, Mr.
Speaker, he was here.
Conner Peterson was here. Vote yes, and have the courage to say so.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the
Lofgren substitute to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 1997),
legislation to create a second Federal offense for harm to a pregnant
woman without creating the second legal ``person.'' The Lofgren
substitute accomplishes the stated goals of the Unborn Victims of
Violence Act, the deterrence and punishment of violent acts against
pregnant women. By allowing for a second Federal offense against a
pregnant woman, perpetrators of violence will be punished to the full
extent of the law and their crimes. H.R. 1997, without the Lofgren
substitute, will do nothing to prevent violence against women and
further undermines their reproductive freedom. Recognizing the fetus as
a second legal ``person'' would be the equivalent of rolling back a
well recognized right that was established over 30 years ago. The
Lofgren substitute would preserve that right. Mr. Speaker, I urge my
colleagues to support the Lofgren substitute.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment
sponsored by my good friend and fellow Californian Congresswoman Zoe
Lofgren. This amendment clearly recognizes that crimes committee
against pregnant women are especially egregious acts that should be
subject to more stringent punishment. Specifically, this amendment
would make it a separate Federal crime to cause, whether intentionally
or not, a prenatal injury or the termination of the pregnancy of the
victim during commission of a number of specified Federal offenses.
Mr. Speaker, I am certain all of my colleagues will agree that any
violent crime against a person is deplorable in and of itself; however,
crimes against expectant mothers are especially heinous and should be
dealt with more severely. I applaud Congresswoman Lofgren for
introducing this amendment.
While I strongly support the amendment we are debating and am a
cosponsor of similar legislation that was introduced by Congresswoman
Lofgren--the Motherhood Protection Act (H.R. 2247)--I feel an
obligation to express my concerns and my strong opposition to the
underlying legislation we are considering today, H.R. 1997, the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act. Although these two bills appear similar at
first blush, they are based on completely different premises.
The Lofgren amendment is based on the belief that when the normal
course of pregnancy is disturbed by a violent crime, the mother is
robbed of her chance to bring a child into this world. Such an act is
intolerable and the offender should be subjected to additional
punishment.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act
extends victim status beyond the expectant mother and assigns legal
status and protection to an unborn embryo or fetus. I believe this is
nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to undermine the rights of
women established in Roe v. Wade. Assigning legal rights to an unborn
embryo or fetus is the fist step in granting ``personhood'' to an
entity which does not yet meet the current threshold for the legal
definition of a person. Passing this legislation would be the beginning
of the slippery slope that will ultimately be used to limit a woman's
right to choose.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are considering today is simply a
politically-motivated effort by some of our colleagues to chip away at
the underlying basis of Roe v. Wade. We, as legislators, have the
responsibility to see through these extremist and extreme views, and to
enact legislation that does not threaten our citizens with the loss of
their Constitutional rights.
Mr. Speaker, a crime against a pregnant woman is an appalling and
deplorable act that deserves the severe punishments specified in the
Lofgren amendment. Without this amendment, the adoption of the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act is simply a deplorable effort to take away from
the women of this country the rights for which many have fought. I urge
all of my colleagues to support the Lofgren substitute amendment to
protect expectant mothers.
Ms. JACKSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am here today because we have a
better alternative to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I support
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren's substitute, the ``Motherhood Protection
Act.'' This 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 the Unborn Victims of Violence Act 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.
As a legislator, and as a mother, I want to protect the rights of
women and children. As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I
know how valuable and precious the lives of children are, and I will do
everything in my power to ensure that any injustices are met with
severe punishment. Unborn Victims of Violence does not do this, rather,
the Motherhood Protection Act does.
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 of choose.
Unborn Victims of Violence 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.
Congress can protect pregnant women from violence without resorting
to controversial bills like Unborn Victims of Violence that undermine
Roe v. Wade. We must take strong 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.
While I am pleased to see the Bush administration taking an active
interest in women and children, I hope they will see that their goals
can be met in other areas. I would like to see the Bush administration
focus their efforts on caring for a pregnant woman by providing her
decent medical care. I hope the Bush administration ensures more happy
pregnancies and births, both with proper family planning and prenatal
care. I call on the Bush administration to have care for the millions
of children already living and breathing in our country, who go to
school in overcrowded classrooms and dilapidated buildings.
We have a wide range of programs in place to help women and children.
I would like my colleagues to spend more time encouraging and funding
these, rather than once again undermining a woman's right to choose.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the so-called
Unborn Victims of Violence Act, H.R. 1997. Proponents of this bill
claim it addresses violence against pregnant women.
Let's be honest here. H.R. 1997 is not an anticrime bill, it is an
antiabortion bill. This bill does not address the women who are victims
of violence. In fact, this bill makes no mention of the woman and the
harm to her that results

[[Page H667]]

from an involuntary termination of her pregnancy.
Legislation that truly addresses the devastation of a pregnancy lost
due to a violent crime should focus on the attack on the woman and
resulting harm to her fetus, as does the amendment offered by my friend
and colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Zoe Lofgren).
I rise in support of this amendment, as it ensures efficient
prosecution of the criminal wrongdoer and would not undermine the legal
principles underlying a woman's right to choose.
Mr. Speaker, if what we are trying to do is protect pregnant women,
then let us protect them. Let us not insult the intelligence of women
in this country by attacking their rights under the guise of protecting
unborn fetuses.
The Venice Family Clinic and Westside Family Health Center, both
located in my district, have programs in place that identify pregnant
women at risk of domestic violence and work closely with the family
throughout the pregnancy and for at least 1 year after the baby is
born. These programs have had positive results at reducing domestic
violence before it occurs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this amendment and rise in opposition
to the underlying bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 529, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended, and on the further amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 186,
nays 229, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 30]

YEAS--186

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Bass
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Dunn
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kolbe
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NAYS--229

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
LaHood
Langevin
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--18

Bell
Brady (TX)
Buyer
Collins
Doggett
Forbes
Honda
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lantos
McInnis
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Northup
Olver
Quinn

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining to vote.

{time} 1336

Messrs. SHIMKUS, SMITH of Texas, GARRETT of New Jersey and BERRY
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. TOWNS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 30 I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, for rollcall vote No. 30, had I been present,
I would have voted in the affirmative.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 254,
noes 163, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 31]

AYES--254

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert

[[Page H668]]

Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
LaHood
Langevin
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--163

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Bass
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kirk
Kolbe
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--16

Bell
Brady (TX)
Buyer
Collins
Doggett
Forbes
Honda
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lantos
McInnis
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Northup
Quinn

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1355

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

____________________