[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20334-20339]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 VICTIMS OF RAPE HEALTH PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 3088) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 to provide additional protections to victims of 
rape.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3088

       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 ``Victims of Rape Health 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. BYRNE GRANT REDUCTION FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.

       (a) Grant Reduction for Noncompliance.--Section 506 of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3756) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Laws of Regulations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The funds available under this subpart 
     for a State shall be reduced by 10 percent and redistributed 
     under paragraph (2) unless the State demonstrates to the 
     satisfaction of the Director that the law or regulations of 
     the State with respect to a defendant against whom an 
     information or indictment is presented for a crime in which 
     by force or threat of force the perpetrator compels the 
     victim to engage in sexual activity, the State requires as 
     follows:
       ``(A) That the defendant be tested for HIV disease if--
       ``(i) the nature of the alleged crime is such that the 
     sexual activity would have placed the victim at risk of 
     becoming infected with HIV; or
       ``(ii) the victim requests that the defendant be so tested.
       ``(B) That if the conditions specified in subparagraph (A) 
     are met, the defendant undergo the test not later than 48 
     hours after the date on which the information or indictment 
     is presented, and that as soon thereafter as is practicable 
     the results of the test be made available to the victim; the 
     defendant (or if the defendant is a minor, to the legal 
     guardian of the defendant); the attorneys of the victim; the 
     attorneys of the defendant; the prosecuting attorneys; and 
     the judge presiding at the trial, if any.
       ``(C) That if the defendant has been tested pursuant to 
     subparagraph (B), the defendant, upon request of the victim, 
     undergo such follow-up tests for HIV as may be medically 
     appropriate, and that as soon as is practicable after each 
     such test the results of the test be made available in 
     accordance with subparagraph (B) (except that this 
     subparagraph applies only to the extent that the individual 
     involved continues to be a defendant in the judicial 
     proceedings involved, or is convicted in the proceedings).
       ``(D) That, if the results of a test conducted pursuant to 
     subparagraph (B) or (C) indicate that the defendant has HIV 
     disease, such fact may, as relevant, be considered in the 
     judicial proceedings conducted with respect to the alleged 
     crime.
       ``(2) Redistribution.--Any funds available for 
     redistribution shall be redistributed to participating States 
     that comply with the requirements of paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Compliance.--The Attorney General shall issue 
     regulations to ensure compliance with the requirements of 
     paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 506(a) of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended 
     by striking ``subsection (f),'' and inserting ``subsections 
     (f) and (g),''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the first day of each fiscal year 
     succeeding the first fiscal year beginning 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Canady) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. 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 material on H.R. 3088.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the sponsor of this 
legislation.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 1996, a 7-year-old girl was brutally 
raped by a 57-year-old deranged man. The little girl and her 5-year-old 
brother had been lured to a secluded abandoned building. The man raped 
and sodomized this little girl. After the man's arrest, the accused 
refused to be tested for HIV. His refusal to take the test was 
permitted and protected under the State law. The man later admitted to 
police that he was infected with HIV.
  The bill before us would ensure that families like this one, and 
numerous others, are not forced to endure torture beyond the assault 
that has already been inflicted upon their child.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for passage of H.R. 3088, the Victims of 
Rape Health Protection Act. This bill will save the lives of victims of 
sexual assault. This bill ensures that the victims of sexual assault or 
their parents know as quickly as possible the HIV status of the 
perpetrator of the crime.
  Sexual assault, sadly, occurs too often in our society. These victims 
suffer unimaginable cruelties and physical and emotional scars that 
usually last a lifetime. Furthermore, with the increased incidence of 
HIV infection in the population, these victims are often forced to wait 
months or years to know whether or not they were exposed to the HIV 
virus.
  This bill puts an end to further torture of the victims and their 
families.

[[Page 20335]]

This bill ensures that the victims of sexual assault can require that 
the accused be tested as soon as an indictment or an information is 
filed against the person. No longer will a victim have to wait months 
or years for such a test of the accused. No longer will the 
perpetrators of these crimes be allowed to bargain for lighter 
sentences in exchange for undergoing HIV testing. This bill puts the 
rights of victims ahead of that of the sexual predators.
  Why is it critical that the victim know as soon as possible if they 
were exposed? The new England Journal of Medicine published a study in 
April of 1997 finding that treatment with HIV drugs can prevent HIV 
infection, provided that the treatment is started within hours. The 
study reviews the treatment of health care workers with occupational 
exposure. That study found a 79 percent drop, almost 80 percent, drop 
in HIV infection with those individuals who are exposed to HIV and were 
started on treatment within hours of the initial exposure.
  Furthermore, the study goes on to report the rate of transmission 
from needlestick injuries is similar to that of sexual exposure. 
Clearly, getting information to the victims of sexual assault as 
quickly as possible is critical in saving the lives of those if they 
have been exposed.
  Some might suggest that all victims of sexual assault be given anti-
HIV drugs as a precautionary measure. As a medical doctor myself who 
has administered these drugs many times in the past, I know firsthand 
that there can be serious side effects. Additionally, I will point out 
that a 4-week cost of these drugs can run anywhere from $500 to $800, 
an exposure that no person would want to needlessly be exposed to.
  As a physician, I am particularly interested in seeing that we take 
steps that can ensure that the victims of sexual assault are given 
every available opportunity to protect themselves against HIV, a 
sentence of death, that could and has resulted from sexual assaults.
  Many States already have this provision in law. H.R. 3088 builds on 
that. Let us approve this bill and place the rights of victims of 
crimes above those of the perpetrators of crime. Let us ensure the 
greatest protection possible for the victims of sexual assault.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has not gone through committee. The issue 
being addressed is being addressed in the Violence Against Women Act, 
where we can have committee hearings and actually come up with a decent 
bill. There are several States that have already addressed this issue 
in different ways. But the way it has come to us today, it has not gone 
through the Committee on the Judiciary. It sounds like it does a good 
job, but there are a number of problems with the legislation. Frankly, 
there has been no attempt to fashion the bill to accomplish its worthy 
alleged goal by any constructive manner.
  For example, there has been no opportunity for anybody to review the 
bill, there is no opportunity for amendments and there is no 
opportunity for any interested parties to comment. It was just sprung 
on us Friday afternoon, and here it is. Six weeks before an election, I 
guess it is important to pass the bill without any hearings and without 
the opportunity to be heard, so I guess this is the way we are going to 
have to legislate the last few weeks.
  First of all, there are a number of problems with the bill. It 
requires a person to be subjected to an AIDS test, even if they are 
innocent, even if they can prove their innocence beyond a reasonable 
doubt.
  Now, some people that may actually have AIDS, may actually be 
innocent, and maybe they want to keep that fact a secret, and here you 
are, notwithstanding the fact that they can show by clear and 
convincing evidence that they were hundreds of miles away at the time 
of the alleged offense, that it was not them. They do not have an 
opportunity to be heard. They get tested, and there is nothing in the 
bill for confidentiality. This information just goes all over the 
place.
  It requires that the test be given, even though in some circumstances 
there is zero risk of transmission. It says a person, if requested by 
the victim, even though there is no chance of transmission, the tests 
can be given.
  There is no protocol, as I indicated, about confidentiality. You may 
have a situation where the victim actually has AIDS and wants to keep 
it a secret, and, all of a sudden, whether or not the perpetrator had 
AIDS or not, you have her subjected to the possibility of this 
information getting out.
  It is a shocking process that we are here on; no opportunity to 
comment, no opportunity to require any due process, no opportunity to 
conform this to what many of the other States have done. Six weeks 
before an election, here we are with legislation with a good title, and 
no opportunity to constructively deal with it.
  We asked the patron for 24 hours so we could consider some of these 
issues, and, no, here it is on suspension; no opportunity to review, no 
opportunity to amend, no opportunity for interested groups to comment. 
Here we are, vote it up or down.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for again 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the concerns raised 
by my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia. First of all, regarding 
the issue of a probable cause hearing that the gentleman brought up, I 
believe that the language in my bill sufficiently addresses that issue, 
in that a charge has to be made, an information or an indictment.

                              {time}  1630

  That typically involves going before a grand jury, a jury of your 
peers, and those processes do not bring, in most instances, trivial 
incidents of somebody who was hundreds of miles away at the time of the 
alleged crime. Typically, there has been an arrest, for example, 
followed by an arraignment.
  The reason this is so imperative, a lot of these crimes happen on 
Friday night, and if we have to insert in the process a probable cause 
hearing, we are going to get beyond a 72-hour window. And if we really 
look at the pathophysiology of how this virus is transmitted, the 
current recommendations are that if we cannot go on antiretroviral 
within 72 hours, then we might as well not even do it.
  Mr. Speaker, while certainly respecting rights is something that I am 
very concerned about, we are talking about life and death here, a 
potential death sentence to somebody who has contracted AIDS. Yes, 
there are case reports in the medical literature of people contracting 
AIDS through rape; so we know that it happens. We know that the 
transmission rate is very, very similar to the rate on needlestick 
injuries.
  We know if we institute antiretroviral therapy within 72 hours of a 
needlestick injury, we can lower the transmission rate of AIDS by 
almost 80 percent. It is for that reason that I feel that a probable 
cause hearing would lead to unnecessary and inappropriate delay.
  We are balancing the life of the other person against the rights of 
the perpetrators of these crimes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to additionally point out that several of 
the other bills that we have taken up today did not go before the 
committee. The committee frequently waives jurisdiction in a case where 
they feel that a piece of legislation is so inherently appropriate that 
it needs to move forward, and I think that is the case, the committee's 
acknowledgment in this particular piece of legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Florida, in an 
indictment, does a defendant have any opportunity to be heard?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, certainly I 
am well aware of the fact that the gentleman from Virginia points out 
something that is correct, the defendant

[[Page 20336]]

does not have any right to be heard; but the defendant has a period 
before a jury of his peers, a grand jury; and I believe that in that 
situation, a probable cause hearing would make unnecessary delay.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just point out, as the gentleman commented, that 
in an indictment a person has no opportunity to be heard. If we can 
prove that it is a case of false identification, we never have an 
opportunity to bring compelling proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it 
could not have possibly been you; and, yet, you are subjected to the 
AIDS test.
  The legislation before us also includes a provision that a person 
must be subjected to the AIDS test, even though there is no likelihood 
at all of a transmission taking place. The legislation talks about not 
rape, but sexual activity. That could be fondling. If requested by the 
defendant, the person could be subjected to an AIDS test.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, being 
very familiar with the law, and, of course, I bring to this debate my 
experience as a physician having taken care of a lot of AIDS patients, 
most reputable prosecutors will look at exonerating information before 
they would bring an indictment before a grand jury; and those pieces of 
information are not totally excluded.
  My concern with the gentleman's issue, the probable cause issue is 
that it would lead to sufficient level of delay that people would not 
be treated within the 72-hour window; and then, therefore, people would 
unnecessarily contract AIDS, and that the better good is to allow this 
provision to go forward; and that the rights of the accused would be 
sufficiently protected through the indictment process.
  Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman 
to advise us as to how much time after an offense an indictment is 
normally obtained.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. If the gentleman would continue to yield, it 
is my understanding that frequently in cases where the information is 
compelling, that it can be brought within 72 hours.
  Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, an indictment 72 hours 
after the offense, including the investigation and the arrest and the 
convening of a grand jury is frequently done within 72 hours. Is that 
the information that we are going to base our consideration of this 
bill on?
  I know the gentleman is a physician and not a lawyer, and perhaps if 
it had gone through the Committee on the Judiciary, we would find that 
a lot of these cases the indictment comes months after the offense.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
realize that all those things occurring within 72 hours can occur, but 
it is unusual, and that very often it takes longer. But I am also aware 
that we can place a patient on antiretroviral therapy while that 
process is working through, and that if we do run into problems with 
side effects from the drugs or if there are some serious concerns 
regarding the costs of the drugs, that, if at a later time, we are able 
to get an HIV test that comes back negative, we can discontinue the 
drugs. Whereas under current State law in some States, we wait months 
or years sometimes before you learn the HIV status.
  Mr. Speaker, what I find even more egregious is some of these 
perpetrators engage in plea bargaining, trying to reduce a rape charge 
to an assault charge in exchange for an HIV test, which I think is 
reprehensible and should not be permissible by any State law, and that 
is why I decided to move forward with this legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman advise 
why it is necessary or what compelling reason there is if the activity 
would place the victim at no risk of becoming infected with AIDS, why 
the AIDS test ought to be required?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am confused by the gentleman's 
question.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, on page 2, lines 12 
through 19, it says that the State shall require the following: an AIDS 
test if the nature of the activity would have placed the victim at risk 
of becoming infected or the victim requested the defendants to be so 
tested.
  So if the victim requested the defendant to be so tested, even though 
there is no chance of a transmission, then the test goes forward 
anyway.
  My question is, why do we have the provision that the defendant be 
tested even though there is no chance of them being infected?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is a 
component of this that is necessary to put people's minds at ease in 
these cases. While it may be a scientific fact that HIV transmission is 
unlikely to occur from certain other types of exchange of bodily fluids 
and that the risk is quite low, the victims of these crimes have zero 
tolerance for risk.
  And while it may be easy for the gentleman as a lawyer or for me as a 
doctor to say, oh, do not worry, what that perpetrator did to you puts 
you at virtually no risk, that is not acceptable to them; they want to 
know. They want zero risk, and that is why I put that provision in the 
bill.
  Certainly, as this piece of legislation moves forward through the 
Senate and goes to a conference, there may be some opportunity to 
adjust this language to put some further provisions in there that may 
make the gentleman more comfortable with the legislation, but that is 
why I included that language in there.
  Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, that is why we asked for 
24 hours so that we could work out some of these provisions including, 
perhaps, some kind of confidentiality, because the results of the AIDS 
test are being made available to at least six, and possibly unlimited 
numbers of, people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my associate, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), that I would like to address three or four questions. Number 
one is, one of the bases of his arguments is that there is no integrity 
in the testing system in terms of confidentiality; that has been proven 
totally false, the basis of that claim.
  We as a medical community, as a public health community have not 
allowed leaks; that is exactly the same argument that was stated when 
children are born to mothers with HIV that they would not come in and 
get tested because somebody would find out.
  In fact, what has happened is we have even more women coming in and 
getting tested because all women are interested in their children.
  Mr. Speaker, the assumption that there is not integrity in the 
testing process and somebody outside who absolutely needs to know will 
violate that person's right is an erroneous assumption, and it is one 
that is continually used in the HIV epidemic.
  The other point that I would make, so that the gentleman would surely 
know this, is that out of the 1.2 million people who have been infected 
with HIV thus far in our country, 600,000 of them still do not know 
they have HIV; they still do not know if they have HIV.
  So whether or not an HIV test is appropriate or a non-HIV test is 
appropriate, there is enough behavior in our country that is not 
malicious that is associated with HIV infection that nobody knows who 
is HIV infected and who is not, because they all look the

[[Page 20337]]

same. HIV is not a regarder of persons of color or sex or life-style. 
It does not care. It does infect.
  The other question that I would ask from the gentleman is, this is 
really a question of squaring off of rights. The gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) has a great record of protecting individual's 
rights, and I think that is very important, that we could not ignore 
it.
  I want to read through a few sets of stories and tell me whether or 
not we ought to be protecting the rights of the rapist or the accused 
rapist or the accused molester or those that were, in fact, victims of 
it. 41-year-old Alabama man raped a 4-year-old girl, infecting her with 
HIV which later claimed her life, 1996.
  Had we known at the time his HIV status, the little girl would be 
alive. As a matter of fact, what we know now is if, in fact, we treat 
early, multiple times, we eliminate the infection, even if there was 
positive HIV there.
  That knowledge within a 72-hour frame will give us an opportunity to 
have at least one aspect of an assault reversed.
  A 35-year-old man in Iowa raped a 15-year-old girl and her 69-year-
old grandmother. He was infected with HIV. No access to know. They did 
not know it until after the fact, until somebody became positive.
  In New Jersey, 3 boys gang raped a 10-year-old mentally retarded 
girl. The girl's family demanded that the boys be HIV tested. Three 
years after the girl was raped and the boys were convicted, the family 
was still fighting to learn the HIV status of the attackers.
  I believe that our law is based on balance, balance of both sets of 
rights and the claim that we cannot know. As a matter of fact, let me 
just change direction. We would not even be having this discussion 
today if we handled HIV like the infectious disease that it should be. 
That fact, if we had proper partner notification, proper follow-up, 
proper exposure follow-up, this would not even be a question on the 
House floor, but because we did the politically correct thing at the 
wrong time and did not treat it like the disease it is, we now have 
600,000 Americans that have died from it.
  I think the question is, are we for the rapists or are we for the 
molesters? Are we for those people who take advantage of others in 
terms of life beyond the attempt to harm someone, or are we for the 
victims?

                              {time}  1645

  So the real test of this vote this evening in the Chamber is people 
are going to line up. They are either going to be for rapists and 
molesters, or they are going to be for the victims. That is certainly 
somewhat of an oversimplification, but we would not be here if we did 
not have the same rationalization that the gentleman put forward 
before, that we cannot test people and hold that confidential.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Frankly, we would not be having the discussion if we had 24 hours 
notice in which to discuss the bill. I think it could have been worked 
out.
  Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows that 
I have nothing to do with that. That is not changing the fact that we 
are here to discuss the facts of this bill.
  Mr. SCOTT. When I was in the State Senate of Virginia, we dealt with 
the issue and gave the defendant an opportunty to be heard so that we 
are not imposing this test on innocent individuals.
  The gentleman mentioned that there is confidentiality within the 
medical situation of the results of the test. The fact of the matter is 
that in the bill, the information is divulged not just to medical 
personnel but to the victim, the defendant, the attorneys for the 
victim, the atorneys for the defendant, the prosecuting attorneys, and 
the judge presiding at the trial.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The time of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the information is also given to the judge presiding at 
the trial, and it provides that if the results are positive, such facts 
may, as relevant, be considered in the judicial proceedings conducted 
with respect to the alleged crime, by means that it virtually has to 
become public information in the public trial.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Right. And today we do the exact same thing on syphilis.
  Let me put forward to the gentleman that, number one, do we serve 
society's greater good if in fact we limit the spread of the disease; 
number two, do we serve the victim's greater good; and, number three, 
if in fact all those individuals that the gentleman mentioned are 
professional, they can be held in conduct claims against their own 
professionalism if in fact they divulge it.
  The final point I would make in terms of the gentleman's argument is 
that it should be exposed. If somebody, in law, has violated somebody 
else and has given them a disease, one of the things we do when one is 
convicted of a felony is they lose certain rights.
  Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, there has been no 
opportunity for the defendant to express himself or show conclusive 
evidence he is innocent of the underlying charge. The fact that they 
may have AIDS becomes public during the trial, before they have had an 
opportunity to be heard.
  The reason we are discussing this is the fact that before this 
information is spread all over the world, before they can say, ``It was 
not me, I was 100 miles away, and can prove it,'' it is all over the 
world. We would not be having this discussion if we could work this out 
so we could have meaningful confidentiality, some meaningful 
opportunity to be heard. There would not have been this discussion. It 
was less than one business day, no opportunity to be heard, no 
opportunity to comment.
  I will continue to read.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the gentleman to think, if 
one of his family members----
  Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, when I was a member of the State 
Senate, I worked on legislation just like this to give the victim the 
ability as soon as practicable to get the information. This does not 
have that.
  The gentleman is talking about an innocent person who is having their 
private affairs exposed to the world. What good does that do?
  Mr. COBURN. If the gentleman will yield, they are not exposed to the 
world, they are only exposed to the world if in fact it comes to trial. 
What is exposed today is those people who are plea bargaining to get 
out of the rape charge by granting testing for HIV.
  Mr. SCOTT. Does the gentleman acknowledge that somebody could be 
factually innocent and could prove it by conclusive evidence, but does 
the gentleman disagree or will he acknowledge that that would become 
public?
  Mr. COBURN. No, I will not acknowledge.
  Mr. SCOTT. I ask the gentleman, how do they keep it private if the 
victim gets information, the defendant gets information, the attorneys 
for the victim, the attorneys for the defendant, the prosecuting 
attorneys, the judge, and the information can get used in a public 
trial? Then how does the gentleman keep that information private until 
the person can say, ``I was 100 miles away from the alleged incident, 
it was not me, and I can prove it?''
  Mr. COBURN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, is the gentleman 
saying that people are not held accountable for confidentiality 
otherwise?
  Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman reads the bill, it requires the 
information to become public.
  Mr. COBURN. I do not know Virginia, but other States, if you have the 
information of public health knowledge that is considered confidential, 
then there is no right to distribute that information.
  Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman would read the bill, it is not in there.

[[Page 20338]]


  Mr. COBURN. I have read the bill.
  Mr. SCOTT. This is the bill. The bill requires the disclosure of 
information.
  Mr. COBURN. At what time?
  Mr. SCOTT. During the trial, before the defendant ever has an 
opportunity to respond.
  Mr. COBURN. Right.
  Mr. SCOTT. To show that he was not there, he was not within 100 
miles, and the fact that he has AIDS becomes a matter of public 
information.
  Mr. COBURN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman's 
contention is that for those people today presently infected by HIV, it 
is more important to maintain their confidentiality than to treat and 
keep somebody else from getting HIV? That is what the gentleman just 
said. That is exactly how we have handled this epidemic. That is what 
is wrong with it.
  Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman would think back to what I had said, if 
the person is innocent of the charge and can prove it, then I see no 
compelling interest to expose the fact that they have AIDS. If they are 
in fact guilty, then the fact that they might have an opportunity to be 
heard would not slow things down one iota.
  Mr. Speaker, basically if the other side had offered us 24 hours, 
even, to discuss the bill, I think it could have been done in the same 
form that Virginia did it, that gives an expedited opportunity to be 
heard and a right to be tested so everyone's rights are protected.
  This provides no such rights. If someone has AIDS and wants to keep 
that information private, they have essentially, under this bill, no 
opportunity to do it because that information would be part of a public 
trial. Then, after the fact that they have AIDS has been made public, 
then they get to present their evidence showing that they were 300 
miles away and could not have possibly been the one who is accused of 
the crime.
  Mr. Speaker, this requires testing even though there is no risk of 
becoming infected. There is no confidentiality of the information. It 
is spread to a minimum of six, possibly dozens of others, even possibly 
more. It says attorneys for the victim, attorneys for the defendant, 
and that could be an entire law firm. There is no telling how many 
people would get the information. None of them are physicians.
  This bill should have gone through committee. I am sure we could have 
worked out legislation, just like we did in Virginia when I was in the 
State Senate, we worked out legislation like this. We could have done 
it with the Violence Against Women Act, where the law presently deals 
with this issue.
  But no, 6 weeks before the election here we come, vote it up or down. 
We do not have to consider any of this, we do not have to be able to 
review it, we do not have to be able to amend it or give people the 
opportunity to be heard, we just have to be able to vote it up or down.
  That is not the way we ought to be legislating. This bill is unfair 
and unreasonable. It could have been fixed with some minor amendments, 
but we do not have the opportunity because it is right before an 
election and we have to take it up or down, take it or leave it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the sponsor of the 
legislation.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Of course, I have the utmost respect for my colleague, the gentleman 
from Virginia, and his experience on this issue in the Virginia 
legislature. I will point out that it did occur prior to the 
development of a stronger body of knowledge on how to prevent HIV 
infection.
  The article that I cited that this legislation is based on was 
published in 1997 prior to the Virginia statute being implemented, and 
the authors of this article appropriately point out that for HIV 
prophylaxis to occur, it needs to be initiated within 72 hours.
  I also would point out that many States currently already comply with 
the provisions in this law, including my home State of Florida, and 
there have not been problems with release of information to the public.
  I would also like to point out that any inappropriate distribution of 
information on HIV testing that was to be given by any legal 
professionals, then those people would be subject to the standard 
disciplinary actions that currently are in place.
  Therefore, I feel that this is clearly a case of balancing the 
greater good. I believe the greater good is to protect the right of 
victims in this case because of the potential to save life. I urge all 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns over H.R. 
3088, the Victims of Rape Health Protection Act of 2000. While I fully 
sympathize with the intent of this legislation, I am afraid that it 
lacks important safeguards with would allow for the full protection of 
victims' rights. I have no doubt that the absence of these crucial 
details can be attributed to the bill's hasty discharge from the 
committee of jurisdiction, and the complete absence of any deliberation 
by the Committee on Judiciary.
  It is important that we understand current law as it applies to the 
rights of victims of sexual assault. According to the National Victim 
Center, 44 states have laws for the mandatory testing of sexual 
offenders. Of these states, 16 require mandatory testing before 
conviction, 33 require testing after conviction, and six require 
testing both before and after testing.
  Under Federal law, HIV testing of convicted sexual offenders is a 
mandatory condition of States' receipt of certain prison grants. Under 
the Crime Control Act of 1994, Congress allowed victims of sexual 
assault to obtain a court order requiring the defendant to submit to 
testing.
  Under current law, such an order may be obtained provided that 
probable cause has been determined, the victim seeks testing of the 
defendant after appropriate counseling, and the court determines both 
that test would provide information necessary to the victim's health 
and that the defendant's alleged conduct created a risk of 
transmission.
  In contrast, this bill requires that States enact mandatory HIV 
testing laws where the alleged crime ``placed the victim at risk of 
becoming infected with HIV'' or if ``the victim requests that the 
defendant be so tested.''
  For a bill that purports to protect the rights of victims of sexual 
offenses, I am troubled by its lack of important and fundamental 
considerations.
  First, under this bill, it is possible that testing of the defendant 
would occur and the results of that testing be widely distributed--
despite the express wishes of the victim. In other words, in cases of 
sexual assault with a resulting risk of HIV infection, this bill seeks 
to have States enact laws to compel testing--even if the victim did not 
request such testing.
  This is not just a theoretical possibility. Victims may justly be 
concerned about the disclosure of test results. Despite our best 
efforts, there remains a stigma associated with HIV/AIDS. According to 
a recent Department of Justice report, New Directions from the Field: 
Victims' Rights and Services for the 21st Century, ``Advocates still 
report problems with insurance companies that, upon learning of the 
victim's HIV test or results, raise health insurance premiums or cancel 
the victim's policy altogether.'' This is clearly unconscionable, yet 
could easily result from this bill.
  Second, we should be concerned with the converse situation, where 
only the victim's request will trigger testing of the defendant. Under 
this bill, testing must occur if a victim desires it, even in 
situations where one cannot reasonably believe the test is needed. I 
strongly support retaining the standard under current Federal law of 
having the court determine whether the test provides information 
necessary to the victim's health and whether the defendant's conduct 
may have created a risk of transmission.
  Third, this bill fails to truly account for the interests of the 
victim. There is no provision of counseling, referrals or services for 
the victim. If we are going to expend scarce resources on timely 
testing of the defendant, we must ensure that their victims have 
complete access to counseling, testing and to health services--services 
which should include immediate, aggressive treatment. Nor is there any 
question that victims of sexual offenses should be entitled to testing 
for other very serious sexually--transmitted diseases, not just HIV/
AIDS.
  As the Department of Justice's report states, ``Although testing the 
offender may be important to the victim, it should be emphasized that 
testing the offender does not replace focusing on the victim's medical 
and emotional needs.'' Indeed, many states require counseling for

[[Page 20339]]

victims prior or in conjunction with the mandatory testing, as does 
current Federal law. But that would not be the case under this bill.
  Finally, in another counterproductive departure from current law, the 
bill needlessly requires distribution of HIV test results--which are 
highly sensitive health information--to a large number of parties, some 
of whom in some situations may not require or even desire the 
information. Again, in contrast, states like Wisconsin have been 
sensitive to these legitimate victim's concerns, specifying that test 
results shall not become part of a person's permanent medical records.
  I am troubled by these obvious deficiencies of H.R. 3088, and regret 
that neither the Committee on Judiciary nor the Members of this House 
were afforded an opportunity to correct them.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3088, the Victims 
of Rape Health Protection Act.
  This bill places the wrong emphasis in dealing with the very 
important crime of rape by violating law-biding citizen's 
constitutional privacy rights and due process rights.
  This bill inappropriately focuses on the defendant rather than 
helping the victim of rape. If the Congress really wants to aid the 
health of a rape victim, then this bill should include referrals or 
direct assistance for health services to rape victims. These health 
services should include making available the rapid testing for HIV and 
other sexually-transmitted diseases in order to allow the rape victim 
to take advantage of an aggressive treatment regimen that needs to 
begin within 48-72 hours after infection.
  This legislation illegally encourages the violation of the due 
process rights of people who may well be innocent law-biding citizens. 
The bill threatens states with the partial loss of their drug control 
grants if they do not test individuals accused of rape for HIV. These 
individuals have not been convicted of a crime therefore it is not 
right to subject them to a mandatory health test. This action is a 
violation of these individuals' due process rights that are afforded to 
them during a search and seizure.
  This bill violates the privacy of United States citizens. The law 
requires states to provide health information of individuals' accused--
not convicted--of rape to court officials and to the prosecutor. This 
information is private medical documentation that this law encourages 
States to make public. The release of this information to the public 
could adversely affect innocent law biding individuals who are found 
not guilty. With the public misconceptions and lack of understanding 
surrounding the HIV virus, these individuals could experience job 
discrimination and social exclusion if these records become public.
  Moreover, this legislation unfairly targets individuals with HIV and 
gives the implication that having HIV as being a crime rather than a 
medical condition. It is time that this Congress began treating 
diseases such as HIV as a medical condition and not a crime.
  It is disgraceful that the majority has decided to put such a 
controversial bill on the suspension calendar. This bill has not had a 
hearing or a mark-up in committee and it only has eleven Republican 
cosponsors. This is another example of the Majority trying to score 
election year points rather than passing thoughtful legislation that 
improves the health and respects the rights of all United States 
citizens.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3088. I 
believe that we in Congress must do everything possible to insure the 
emotional, mental and physical health of the victims of violent crime.
  In recent years Congress has worked very hard to elevate the status 
of the victim in the criminal court process--by recognizing the need 
for victims' rights and writing those rights into law.
  Now we have the opportunity to expand upon doing the right thing for 
the victims of violent crime. HIV testing of those charged with violent 
crimes is a step in the right direction. The second step--making it 
legal to tell the victims the medical test results--is essential for 
their emotional, mental and physical health. And, of course, timeliness 
of testing and notification of the victim is of the essence.
  We will never be able to undo the harm that has been done to the 
victim, but we can take steps to control its long-term effects. I urge 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a stand on victims' 
rights. Vote yes on H.R. 3088.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3088.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________