[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19064-19066]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1019

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the Laci and Connor Peterson murders in 
California have brought before the American people a critical question 
that deserves a response: When a criminal attacks a woman who is 
pregnant, killing both her and her unborn child, has he killed one 
victim or two?
  I believe the answer is two. Laci Peterson was not the only person 
killed but her unborn baby, Connor, was also murdered.
  Unfortunately, there is a loophole in Federal law that does not 
permit prosecutors to charge suspects with killing both mother and 
child. Twenty-seven States have moved to close this loophole in their 
State laws. Indeed, California is one of those States. That is why 
State prosecutors have charged Scott Peterson with the deaths of his 
wife Laci and his son Connor.
  I believe it is long past time for the Senate to close this loophole 
for Federal crimes. We have been working with our friends across the 
aisle since June 26 to reach an agreement to bring up this bill but so 
far we have been unsuccessful. But we are not going to give up.
  Thus, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the 
majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar item No. 89, S. 
1019, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003, under the following 
conditions: 2 hours of debate equally divided in the usual form; 
further, that no amendments be in order and that all points of order be 
waived; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a 
third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the measure, 
with no intervening action or debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are very close to a point where we could 
offer the leader the ability to modify his unanimous consent request. 
Senator Feinstein, we would ask, would offer an amendment which would 
be a substitute. Senator Murray would offer one on domestic relations, 
and another Senator would offer one that deals with intent. We think 
there may be one other amendment, maybe two, that we would be able to 
enter into. Maybe later today, or probably tomorrow, would be the best 
time to again renew the request of the majority leader.
  At this time we cannot agree; therefore, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have been working on this very important 
issue with the other side of the aisle, and it is absolutely critical 
that we address the issue, we believe, as soon as possible. Therefore, 
I am very pleased that we are hearing what the nature of the amendments 
might be. This is the first time I have heard what those amendments 
could possibly be. I look forward, again, to working to bring this bill 
to the floor as soon as possible.
  I am sorry that my friend from Nevada objects to bringing up this 
bipartisan bill now. We believe it is a critically important bill that 
does deserve prompt consideration.
  Sharon Rocha, the mother of Laci Peterson and the grandmother of 
Connor Peterson, has written an eloquent

[[Page 19065]]

letter asking that the Senate quickly pass this bill, pass this bill as 
soon as possible.
  The House of Representatives, as my colleagues probably know, has 
passed this very bill twice but the bill keeps being blocked in the 
Senate.
  I know my colleague from Ohio, who is the sponsor of the Unborn 
Victims of Violence Act, has been working very hard, mentioning to me 
almost daily the need to get this bill to the floor as soon as possible 
and to address this important issue.
  Thus, I yield to my distinguished colleague from Ohio.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
  I am sorry we are not able to bring this bill up today. I hope that 
what I hear from my colleague from Nevada is encouraging words and that 
we will be able to get an agreement shortly.
  Let me say, as my colleague from Tennessee, the majority leader, has 
pointed out, that now in over half the States in the Union, if you 
commit a crime of violence against a pregnant woman and her unborn baby 
dies, you can be punished for the violence against both the mother and 
the unborn child.
  But the other side of that story is, in roughly half of the States in 
the Union, they do not have this law, and in the Federal Government we 
do not have this law. We have been trying to rectify this since 1999, 
which is the first time I introduced this bill.
  My colleague Lindsey Graham, who is going to speak in a moment, was 
the leader in the House of Representatives when they passed the bill 
several times in the past. So, this is not something that just came up 
in the last few months.
  Let me make a couple comments before I yield to my colleague. First, 
this has nothing to do with abortion. We have a very specific exception 
in this bill in very definite language that states it has nothing to do 
with abortion. You can't write it any clearer or any plainer than we 
have written the language.
  Second, let me give an example that will show the compelling need for 
this bill. Even though over half of the States now have very similar 
legislation, consider this situation. Assume that an airman stationed 
at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware attacks a pregnant woman--his 
girlfriend, wife, someone he doesn't know. Assume his intent is to 
terminate her pregnancy and he savagely beats her with a specific 
intent to terminate that pregnancy. Assume that, in fact, that is what 
happens, and the child does, in fact, die. Under current Federal law, 
the only thing the Federal prosecutor could charge him with is the 
assault against the mother. The reason for that is there is no Federal 
law such as the one we are talking about, and Delaware does not have a 
law.
  That is not right. That is not justice. We need to say that is not 
right. We need to close that loophole because everyone in this country, 
I believe, recognizes there is a second victim, and it is not just, it 
is not right that that child should not be recognized as a victim. And 
there is no one in this country who believes that man should walk away 
with the only charge against him being a simple assault.
  We had a case in Ohio a few years ago that turned out differently. It 
was a tragic case, but at least justice was done. It was the exact same 
case--a man was stationed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, an 
airman, had a pregnant girlfriend. He decided that he was going to end 
her pregnancy. He savagely beat her, terminated her pregnancy. She 
aborted and lost her child. The Federal prosecutor gets the tragic case 
and finds out there is no Federal law that says he can charge. He looks 
around and says: What am I going to do? Fortunately, Ohio had just 
passed a law similar to this. So under the Federal assimilative law he 
was able to assimilate the Ohio law into the Federal code and was able 
to charge him with the murder of the child. But in those States, those 
23 States that do not have that, if that Air Force base had been 
located in any of those States, justice would not have been done.
  What we are saying is, it is time for there to be justice. It is time 
for there to be a Federal law. This law simply recognizes what every 
person in this country understands that there is, in fact, a second 
victim.
  I yield back to the majority leader.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. I thank my distinguished colleague from Ohio for his 
longstanding leadership on this particular issue. We all know the issue 
has been highlighted by the recent tragic events with the Peterson 
family. Again, both my distinguished colleague from Ohio, as well as 
another colleague I will turn to shortly, have been at this a long 
time. We appreciate their leadership and look forward to addressing 
this issue on the Senate floor when we have that opportunity.
  I would now like to turn to my colleague from South Carolina, the 
champion of this bill when he was in the House of Representatives 
before coming to the Senate.
  I yield to my friend from South Carolina.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I thank the majority 
leader and publicly acknowledge all the hard work on his behalf, 
working with my colleagues on the Democratic side. Senator Frist has 
been very responsive, trying to get this bill up for a vote, and it 
seems we are making progress. In terms of our leadership, I could not 
be more pleased with the efforts he has made to fill in this gap.
  The Laci Peterson case probably explains the dynamic better than I 
could ever explain it. However, there has been an ongoing fight to fix 
this problem of the Federal law for many years. Senator DeWine has been 
the champion of this bill in the Senate. When I first introduced it in 
the House, in the 106th Congress, it passed by 254 votes to 172 with 
over 50 Democratic Members. A lot of pro-choice people voted for the 
bill because America does divide on a woman's right to choose evenly. 
But when you ask Americans if a woman chooses to have the child and 
that child is harmed while she is pregnant through criminal assault, 
about 80 percent of Americans, Democrats and Republicans, say together 
that the criminal should be prosecuted for both events, damage to the 
mother and the child.
  There is a lot of bipartisan support for this bill. It passed in the 
106th Congress in the House, 107th Congress in the House with over 250 
votes, with Democrats and Republicans, pro-choice, pro-life people 
coming together. Senator DeWine has been an advocate for this bill 
since it originated. I thank him.
  The reason we need this bill is because there are more events such as 
this than you would want to believe where people attack pregnant women, 
causing them to lose their child, and in a certain class of cases where 
the Federal jurisdiction is the exclusive form of prosecution, there is 
no right under Federal law for a prosecutor to go after the harm done 
to the unborn child.
  In the Oklahoma City bombing case there was a lady working for the 
DEA. She was a secretary, Carrie Lenz. On the day of the bombing, she 
came to work early to show her coworkers an ultrasound picture of her 
unborn child, Michael Lenz III. She was showing her coworkers the 
ultrasound picture and the building blew up, killing her and her child. 
In the House when we were doing hearings on this bill, the father, 
Michael Lenz, came to testify. He told us in very emotional, eloquent 
terms that that day he lost two things. He lost his son Michael James 
Lenz III and he lost his wife. If this law had existed, the prosecutor 
would have been able to prosecute Timothy McVeigh for two acts of 
violence, not one.
  We need this bill. Unfortunately, these events do happen. And when 
they do happen, most Americans, a high percentage in polling, Democrats 
and Republicans in the House and I do believe in the Senate, would want 
the full weight of the law to go against defenders who attack pregnant 
women. I believe this bill will be signed by the

[[Page 19066]]

President because he said he would sign it. I know it will pass the 
House. If we can get a vote in the Senate, it will pass the Senate with 
a strong bipartisan vote.
  I thank Senator Frist for pushing this measure, and I hope we can 
accommodate our friends on the Democratic side to get a vote on this 
bill so that we can do something that will be very positive in this 
Congress, and that is make sure the people who attack pregnant women 
get whacked as hard as we can whack them.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in closing, I look forward to working with 
the Democratic leadership in terms of bringing this to the floor of the 
Senate as soon as possible. It really does boil down to the fundamental 
question of when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, killing both the 
woman and her unborn child, has there been one or two victims? That is 
what this legislation addresses in a very direct fashion.
  Mr. President, I ask that my following remarks be taken from leader 
time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The leader has that right.

                          ____________________