Amendment Text: H.Amdt.27 — 107th Congress (2001-2002)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (04/26/2001)

This Amendment appears on page H1640 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H1612-H1650]
                 UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2001

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 119, the rule 
just passed, I call up the bill (H.R. 503) 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 119, the bill 
is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 503 is as follows:

                                H.R. 503

       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 2001''.

     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

[[Page H1613]]

     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.

       (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. Pursuant to House Resolution 119, the 
amendment printed in House Report 107-50 is considered adopted.
  The text of H.R. 503, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 119, is 
as follows:

                                H.R. 503

       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 2001''.

     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.

       (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. Causing death of or bodily injury to 
       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

[[Page H1614]]

     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. Art. 119a. Causing death of or bodily injury to unborn 
              children.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 2 hours of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, if 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) or her 
designee, which shall be considered read and shall be debatable for 60 
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 60 minutes of debate on 
the bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims 
of Violence Act of 2001. Under current Federal law, an individual who 
commits a Federal crime of violence against a pregnant woman receives 
an additional punishment for killing or injuring that woman's unborn 
child during the commission of the crime. As a result, except in those 
States that recognize unborn children as victims of such crimes, 
injuring or killing an unborn child during the commission of a violent 
crime has no legal consequence whatsoever.
  This deficiency in the law is especially troubling, considering the 
findings of a recent study of women in Maryland published in the March 
21, 2001, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. The 
authors of this study found that homicide is likely the leading cause 
of death among women who are pregnant or were recently pregnant.
  Another recent study of autopsies performed on women here in the 
District of Columbia revealed that an inordinate number of women who 
died of violence were also pregnant. This study prompted a call for an 
investigation by the General Accounting Office and the FBI.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, 
was designed to correct this deficiency in Federal law by providing 
that an individual who injuries or kills an unborn child during the 
commission of certain predefined violent Federal crimes may be punished 
for a separate offense. The Subcommittee on the Constitution held a 
hearing on virtually identical legislation during the 106th Congress, 
and the bill passed the House with strong bipartisan support on 
September 30, 1999, by a vote of 254 to 172.
  During the current Congress, the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
held a hearing on this legislation on March 15, 2001. The subcommittee 
held a markup on the legislation on March 21, 2001, and reported the 
bill without amendment by a voice vote. On March 28, 2001, the full 
Committee on the Judiciary held a markup and favorably reported H.R. 
503, without amendment, by a recorded vote of 15 to 9.
  Under the act, the punishment for an offense against the unborn child 
will be the same punishment that would have been imposed under Federal 
law had that conduct resulted in the same injury to the mother. For 
example, if an individual assaults a Federal official in violation of 
18 United States Code Section 111, as a result of that assault kills 
the official's unborn child, the perpetrator may be punished for either 
second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary 
manslaughter, for killing the unborn child, the same punishment the 
individual would have received had the Federal official died as a 
result of the assault. By its own terms, the act does not apply to 
conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant 
woman has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law in 
a medical emergency.

                              {time}  1045

  So this is not an abortion bill. The act does not permit prosecution 
of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her 
unborn child or the mother for any conduct with respect to her unborn 
child.
  The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 will provide just 
punishment for criminals like Glendale R. Black of Wisconsin, who on 
February 8, 1992, brutally beat his wife, Terry Marciniak, who was 9 
months pregnant with her unborn baby, Zachariah. Little Zachariah was 
just 4 days from being delivered from his mother's womb. At the 
hospital, Zachariah was delivered dead.
  At that time, Wisconsin did not have an unborn victims law like H.R. 
503, so Black was convicted of only assault and is already eligible for 
parole.
  The bill would also provide punishment for criminals like Reginald 
Anthony Falice, who on April 28, 1998, shot his 8-month-pregnant wife, 
Ruth Croston, at least five times as she sat at a red light in 
Charlotte, North Carolina. Falice was convicted by a Federal jury for 
interstate domestic violence and using a firearm in the commission of a 
violent crime, but because Federal law did not currently recognize the 
unborn as victims, he received no additional punishment for killing the 
near-term infant.
  Ms. Croston's brother, William Croston, testified before the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution regarding the tragic death of his 
sister and the failure of Federal law to recognize the murder of his 
unborn niece.
  Or criminals who planted a bomb just outside of Tammy Lynn Baker's 
apartment in Louisa, Virginia. Ms. Baker was near term with her unborn 
child when the bomb exploded on December 3, 1997, killing her and the 
child.
  Nearly 3 years later, Coleman Johnson, the unborn child's father, was 
arrested on a Federal explosives charge for the death of Ms. Baker and 
is awaiting trial. His charges do not include the murder of his unborn 
child.
  A similar incident occurred in Connellsville, Pennsylvania on January 
1, 1999, when Deanna Mitts, who was 8 months pregnant, returned home 
from a New Year's Eve celebration with her 3-year-old daughter, Kayla. 
A bomb exploded in her apartment, killing Ms. Mitts, Kayla, and the 
unborn child.
  Almost a year later, Joseph Minerd, the presumed father of the unborn 
child, was arrested for Deanna and Kayla's murder, but is not being 
held criminally liable for the harm caused to the unborn child.
  This legislation would also ensure just punishment for criminals like 
Gregory Robbins, an airman at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, in Ohio 
who wrapped his fist in a T-shirt to reduce the chance he would inflict 
visible bruises, and beat his 8-months pregnant wife in the face and 
abdomen, killing their unborn baby.
  Military prosecutors were able to charge Robbins for death of the 
unborn child by assimilating Ohio's fetal homicide law through the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice. Had Mr. Robbins beaten his wife just 
across the river in Kentucky, a State which has no fetal homicide law, 
he would have received no additional punishment for killing the unborn 
child.
  By enacting H.R. 503, Congress will ensure that criminals who commit 
violent acts against pregnant women are justly punished for killing 
unborn children or injuring them. Without this bill, crimes against 
these innocent victims will go unpunished.
  I have given the Members of the House a list of several heinous 
crimes. It shows the need for this legislation. It shows specifically 
that killing an innocent unborn child should be prosecuted to the 
fullest extent of the law.

[[Page H1615]]

The only way to do this is to pass H.R. 503, and I urge my colleagues 
to support this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Mr. Stump, I submit for the Record a letter he wrote to the 
Speaker relating to the floor consideration of H.R. 503, the ``Unborn 
Victims of Violence Act of 2001.''

                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                   Washington, DC, April 23, 2001.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: In recognition of the desire to expedite 
     floor consideration of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of 
     Violence Act of 2001, the Committee on Armed Services agrees 
     to waive its right to consider this legislation. H.R. 503, as 
     introduced and ordered reported by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary on April 20, 2001, contains subject matter that 
     falls within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Armed Services pursuant to rule X of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives.
       The Committee on Armed Services takes this action with the 
     understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over the 
     provisions in question is in no way diminished or altered, 
     and that the Committee's right to the appointment of 
     conferees during any conference on the bill remains intact.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Bob Stump,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join my colleagues in this discussion. 
I have listened to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary begin 
by describing, I lost count, about seven or eight horrible, offensive, 
violent incidents in which a pregnant mother and her unborn child were 
hurt or killed.
  There is not anyone in the Congress that does not feel very strongly 
about the violence against unborn victims. But if that is going to be 
the way we get to undermining Roe v. Wade, I do not think it is going 
to happen here today, because I think our job is to make it clear what 
is really going on.
  Just for the record, I would like everybody to know that there is 
punishment for the killing of a fetus. It was stated that there is no 
punishment that exists today. It is in the Federal law. It is in the 
current Federal sentencing guidelines that permit the enhancement of a 
sentence under the vulnerable victims guideline. So that is number one.
  Number two, there is a substitute. There is a remedy to the flawed 
bill that has been brought on the floor. That is the Lofgren-Conyers 
substitute, which does everything, and in some instances it has more 
penalty for the person that attacks a pregnant mother and kills an 
unborn victim than the current bill, but it gets us around the 
subversion of Roe v. Wade, and it comports with Roe v. Wade.
  I am amazed that we would begin this discussion trying to skip around 
the whole heart of this debate. This is not a matter of how many 
anecdotes you can dig up. I have 40. The gentleman has 10. I have twice 
that amount.
  The question is, how are we going to deal with the subject, Mr. 
Speaker. The right way to do it is through the substitute, which is 
going to be dealing with a way to punish the people that violate 
mothers, and by the way, it is hard to deal with an unborn victim of 
violence without hurting the mother as well. So this is what we are 
here to discuss today.
  Let us be friendly about this. This act was designed to erode the 
foundation of a woman's right to choose under Roe v. Wade by simply 
elevating the legal statuses of prenatal development under Federal law, 
and creates a separate offense during the commission of a crime ``. . . 
which causes death to a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage 
of development.'' That is a quote from the bill.
  Well, that sounds okay, but what does it mean? It means that if 
enacted, this would be the first time in the Federal legal system that 
we would begin to recognize a fertilized egg, a zygote, a 
preimplantation embryo, a blastocyst and an embryo through 8 weeks of 
pregnancy or a fetus after 8 weeks which can be a person, which can be 
an independent violent crime. That is what the bill is trying to do.
  I did not know I would have to be the first to bring it to 
discussion, since I am against it, but no sneaking around today, we are 
going to have to put it all on the table, so we might as well start off 
now defending the proposition that is embedded fatally in H.R. 503.
  These acts against women are tragic and especially for pregnant 
women. But the true aim of this legislation is not to stop violence 
against women. In fact, the protections for women are notably absent 
from this legislation.
  So what we are here today to do is to determine whether or not we are 
going to undermine a woman's right to choose by recognizing that all of 
these things that have not had separate rights are now equal to and in 
some cases superior to women who are worthy of the legal protection.
  The Supreme Court has held, I remind all the lawyers on the Committee 
on the Judiciary, the Supreme Court has held that fetuses are not 
persons within the meaning of the 14th amendment. I am not going to 
repeat that. If enacted, the bill would improperly inject debates about 
abortion into criminal prosecutions across the country. That is 
unfortunate and tragic.
  I think that may be one of the purposes of why the proponents have 
written the bill up in this way. They have crafted a bill that is 
certain to inflame the national debate about when life begins. We do 
not want to do that. We just merely want to protect unborn victims of 
violence. The way to do it is by simply moving away from the notion 
that we have just created another category of persons that have not 
ever been recognized in the Federal legal system before now. That is 
why we are going to have a fair amount of opposition to this proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to 
me, and I thank him for his leadership on this very important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, as we conduct this debate today, we going to hear from 
opponents that, for various reasons, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act 
of 2001 is unconstitutional. We will also hear that the legislation in 
some mysterious way applies to abortion.
  I want to make very clear from the beginning that these assertions 
are false. In fact, these arguments only serve as a smokescreen, a 
distraction from the real issue at hand.
  What are the real issues? Those of us supporting this legislation 
believe that when a criminal commits an act of violence against a woman 
and her unborn child, the criminal should face punishment for both the 
harm caused to the mother and for injuring or killing the innocent 
child that she is carrying.
  Opponents of the legislation feel otherwise. They believe that the 
criminal should not face separate sanctions for harm inflicted on the 
unborn child, even if the unborn child, a child that the mother greatly 
wanted to bring into this world, is killed.
  With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity 
to address the legal issues that have been raised regarding the Unborn 
Victims of Violence Act.
  First, questions have been raised about Congress' constitutional 
authority to enact this legislation. The challenge to the bill on this 
ground is completely without merit. It is clear that Congress has such 
constitutional authority because the bill will only affect conduct that 
is already prohibited by Federal law.
  H.R. 503 merely provides an additional offense and punishment for 
those who injure or kill an unborn child during the commission of one 
of the existing predicate offenses set forth in the bill. If there is 
any question regarding the constitutionality of the act's reach, that 
question is addressed to the constitutionality of the predicate 
offense, not H.R. 503.
  Opponents of this legislation also argued that it somehow violates 
the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. This argument is also 
without merit. To begin with, H.R. 503 simply does not apply to 
abortion. On page 4 of the bill, beginning on line 9, prosecution is 
explicitly precluded ``for any conduct relating to an abortion for 
which the consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained or for which 
such consent is implied by law.''

                              {time}  1100

  So it does not apply to abortion. The act also does not permit 
prosecution

[[Page H1616]]

``of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her 
unborn child or of any woman with respect to her unborn child.'' So it 
does not apply to abortion, period. The act could not be more clear in 
exempting abortion.
  Moreover, there is nothing in Roe v. Wade that prevents Congress from 
giving legal recognition to the lives of unborn children outside the 
parameters of the right of abortion marked off in that case. In 
establishing a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, the Roe court 
explicitly stated that it was not resolving ``the difficult question of 
when life begins,'' because ``the judiciary, at this point in the 
development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to 
the answer.'' That is what the Court said.
  What the court held was that the government could not override the 
rights of the pregnant woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy by 
adopting one theory of when life begins. The Supreme Court explicitly 
confirmed this understanding of Roe in Webster v. Reproductive Health 
Services. That was a 1989 case.
  Courts addressing the constitutionality of State laws that punish 
killing or injuring unborn children have recognized the lack of merit 
in the argument that such laws violate Roe and as a result have 
consistently upheld those State laws. For example, in Smith v. Newsome, 
which was decided in 1987, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
11th Circuit held that Roe was immaterial to whether a State can 
prohibit the destruction of a fetus by a third party.
  The Minnesota Supreme Court echoed that sentiment in 1990 in the case 
of State v. Merrill, holding that Roe v. Wade protects the woman's 
right of choice. It does not protect, much less confer on an assailant, 
a third-party unilateral right to destroy the fetus.
  In 1994, the California Supreme Court held in People v. Davis that 
the Roe v. Wade principles are inapplicable to a statute that 
criminalizes the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent. In 
State v. Coleman, a 1997 case, the Ohio court, my State, the Court of 
Appeals stated, ``Roe protects a woman's constitutional right. It does 
not protect a third-party's unilateral destruction of a fetus.''
  Opponents of this legislation have also argued that the use of the 
term ``unborn child'' is ``designed to inflame.'' They contend that the 
use of this term may, in the words of those dissenting from the 
Committee on the Judiciary report, result in a major collision between 
the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn.
  This objection reflects nothing more than the semantical preferences 
of the most radical abortion advocates. It is based upon an apparent 
lack of knowledge of the widespread use of the term ``unborn child'' in 
the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the United States 
Courts of Appeals, in State statutes and in State court decisions, and 
even in the legal writings of abortion advocates themselves.
  The use of the term ``unborn child'' by the Supreme Court can be 
illustrated by reference to Roe v. Wade itself, in which Justice 
Blackmon used the term ``unborn children'' as synonymous with 
``fetuses.'' Justice Blackmon also used the term ``unborn child'' in 
Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe, in which the court struck 
down Georgia's abortion statute.
  Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have also used the term ``unborn 
child'' as synonymous with fetus. These cases include City of Akron v. 
Akron Center for Reproductive Health, decided back in 1983; Webster v. 
Reproductive Health services, decided in 1989; and International Union 
v. Johnson Controls, decided in 1991.
  There are so many decisions by the United States Courts of Appeal 
using the term ``unborn child'' that it would be too time consuming to 
go through them all.
  There are also at least 19 State criminal statutes similar to H.R. 
503 that currently use the term ``unborn child'' to refer to a fetus, 
and these statutes have been consistently upheld by the courts.
  Even abortion advocates such as Catharine MacKinnon have used the 
term ``unborn child'' as synonymous with the term ``fetus.'' In an 
article that was published in the Yale Law Journal entitled 
``Reflections on Sex Equality Under the Law,'' Professor MacKinnon 
conceded that a ``fetus is a human form of life'' that is ``alive.'' In 
her defense of abortion, Professor MacKinnon expressed her view that 
``many women have abortions as a desperate act of love for their unborn 
children.''
  Finally, opponents of H.R. 503 have argued that the bill lacks the 
necessary means requirement for a valid criminal law and is therefore 
unconstitutional. This argument reflects a lack of understanding of 
H.R. 503 and the well-established doctrine of transferred intent in the 
criminal law.
  Under H.R. 503, an individual may be guilty of an offense against an 
unborn child only if he has committed an act of violence with criminal 
intent upon a pregnant woman, thereby injuring or killing her unborn 
child. Relying upon the doctrine of transferred intent, H.R. 503 
considers the criminal intent directed toward the pregnant woman to 
have also been directed toward the unborn child.
  The transferred intent doctrine was recognized in England as early as 
1576 and was adopted by the American courts during the early days of 
the Republic. A well-known criminal law commentator describes the 
application of the doctrine to the crime of murder in language that is 
remarkably similar to the language and operation of this legislation as 
follows: ``Under the common-law doctrine of transferred intent, a 
defendant who intends to kill one person but instead kills a bystander, 
is deemed the author of whatever kind of homicide would have been 
committed had he killed the intended victim,'' which is essentially 
what we have under this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the legal challenges to this bill 
cannot withstand serious scrutiny. It is clear that this law does not 
in any way impact abortion. It is especially clear that the opposition 
of the bill, in fact, stems from an objection to the very concept of 
unborn children. The opponents insist that a concept that is a well-
recognized one in the law is somehow dangerous and subversive. These 
arguments should be soundly rejected. The only people who have anything 
to fear from this bill are the criminals who engage in violent acts 
against women and the unborn children that they are carrying.
  So, again, let me remind my colleagues of what the true question is 
before us. Do you believe that a violent criminal who kills or injures 
an unborn child, a child who is loved and wanted by a mother and 
usually the father, should face an additional offense and punishment 
for their acts? I believe that the American people would answer that 
question with a resounding yes, and I hope the House would do the same 
today.
  I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) for his 
leadership on this issue. I also thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for 
his leadership.
  I urge Members to vote in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence 
Act.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot), the subcommittee chairman. I would like him to know that all 
of us on our side and those that support the substitute believe 
strongly that victims of violence should be punished; the victims, both 
the mother and the unborn infant, the unborn victim. Okay. We all 
believe that. We do not have a different view on that. Okay.
  The second thing that you need to know is that, if this bill does not 
deal with abortion, which I will go into later, why is it coming out of 
the Subcommittee on the Constitution instead of the Subcommittee on 
Crime?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. It 
is because the Subcommittee on the Constitution has jurisdiction over 
this particular issue, issues of privacy, issues of civil rights, a 
whole range of issues.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this is a civil rights bill?
  Mr. CHABOT. Pardon me?
  Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman from Ohio said this is a civil rights 
bill?
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I am saying that is one among many of the

[[Page H1617]]

other issues. I was going to say it also has jurisdiction over 
constitutional amendments and all kinds of issues.
  Mr. CONYERS. All right. Is it a crime bill?
  Mr. CHABOT. Pardon me?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, is it a crime bill? Yes or no?
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, it is an issue that clearly is a crime 
against unborn children and as well as the mothers.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio is saying yes, I 
take it. It is sort of a crime bill.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. It is a crime bill.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, it is a crime bill as well as a 
constitutional issue.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio. It took a 
half a minute of my time to get to that. But it is a crime bill that 
comes out of the Subcommittee on the Constitution in the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Now, you think we do not know why, do you not? You think we thought 
that it was tossed there by accident. But it is tossed there because it 
is changing the fundamental constitutional law in the most controlling 
case on abortion in current Federal judicial practice, Roe v. Wade. 
That is why it went there.
  So I think that we ought to put all these cards on the table and not 
try to demonize the other side because we have a bill that does the 
same thing as the primary bill. But the only thing that we do not do is 
that we do not redefine what an embryo is. We do not change the status 
of a fetus or a fertilized egg. We do not make them all persons, and 
you do. There it is, I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot). 
That is the difference. If my colleagues corrected that difference, we 
would all be supporting their bill.
  It turned out that the Lofgren substitute is even more harsh on those 
who violate women who are pregnant. So I just wanted my colleagues to 
take that under consideration as we continue to debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Millender-McDonald) who is the chairperson of the Women's Caucus.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the ranking member 
for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 503. As the cochair 
of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, I am insulted by this 
misleading piece of legislation. This legislation is deceptive, 
destructive, and a poor attempt to mislead and strip away a woman's 
reproductive rights. This bill is extremely volatile and has the 
potentiality to eradicate a woman's right to choose as recognized by 
the landmark case Roe v. Wade.
  This bill, in fact, undermines a woman's right to choose as cited in 
the New York Times editorial yesterday, ``The Reproductive Rights Under 
Attack.'' In fact, it says, ``Packaged as a crime fighting measure, 
H.R. 503 is actually aimed at fulfilling a long-term goal of the right 
to life movement.''
  I stand firmly in the belief that women's reproductive decisions are 
private and their individual freedoms must be preserved. Those who 
support this bill claim that it is necessary in order to vigorously 
punish offenders who harm pregnant women. If the emphasis of the bill 
is to protect women, why is this not mentioned anywhere in the bill.
  Assault against pregnant women is serious. Legislation that has a 
separate agenda such as this one cannot provide the adequate protection 
to women.
  I oppose H.R. 503 because its real purpose is to erode the 
reproductive rights of women. It is not intended to recognize violence 
against women. In fact, it does not even reference a woman. It could 
make matters worse for women by encouraging antiabortion prosecutors to 
pursue charges for harm to embryos or the fetus while ignoring the 
woman who has also been harmed.
  Mr. Speaker, this is, indeed, a smoke screen. It is an affront to 
American women who wish to have their reproductive rights left to them. 
I say, if you are going to protect the rights of all other folks, the 
gun owners, the oil drillers, then protect the rights of women. I 
oppose H.R. 503.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has questioned 
the Subcommittee on the Constitution considering this bill and has said 
that this is a wholesale assault on the constitutional rights granted 
women by Roe v. Wade. He is wrong.
  Twenty-four States have statutes similar to the one that is being 
considered today. If those statutes which protect the rights of unborn 
children were such an assault on the mother's constitutional right, 
every one of them would have been struck down by a Federal court, from 
the District Court to the Supreme Court level. They have not been, 
because it is not an assault on the constitutional right of a woman to 
choose.
  Then we just heard from the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Millender-McDonald) that this strips away women's reproductive rights. 
I would submit to the gentlewoman from California that, if the woman 
wanted to have an abortion, she would have had an abortion before the 
assault took place. In these cases that this bill will protect, the 
woman wants to have her child born.

                              {time}  1115

  So she has already made her choice, and that was for the child to be 
born. If someone takes away that child's right to life through an 
assault or through a murder, then that person, that criminal, ought to 
be prosecuted twice. You do not want the criminal prosecuted twice when 
the woman has chosen to bring that child to term and have that child 
born alive.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and agree with 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) that this issue has nothing to do with abortion. 
Unlike the substitute that will be offered later today, this bill 
specifically exempts any activity involving a legal abortion. This bill 
is directed only at protecting the unborn child. It is an extension. In 
fact, this bill allows for an additional prosecution after a person has 
committed a violent act against the woman herself. Therefore, it does 
recognize the woman. In fact, it recognizes the woman first.
  Mr. Speaker, this woman that we are talking about must be pregnant, 
but she must first be a victim of a crime of one of over 60 Federal 
statutes that are violent acts perpetrated against the woman. Only then 
will this legislation kick in, basically, as a way to also prosecute 
that perpetrator for the crime done against the unborn child.
  I commend to my colleagues that this is a measure that respects the 
decision of the woman to bear her child. This is a measure that is an 
additional ability for the Federal Government to prosecute against an 
extreme act of domestic violence that causes not only harm to a woman, 
but also harm and often death to her unborn child.
  Mr. Speaker, as a State Senator, I worked on issues of domestic 
violence, and was proud, in 1998, to support Pennsylvania's version of 
this bill. In fact, the vast majority of Senators and House members in 
Pennsylvania, both pro-choice and pro-life, supported this measure 
because we understand that domestic violence is a serious problem in 
this country. Unfortunately, statistics show that many of the children, 
the unborn children who are killed in these cases, their mothers are 
victims of domestic violence, as are they. In fact, as published in the 
Journal of the American Medical Association, March 21, 2001, a study 
that was done in Maryland recognized the highest percentage of pregnant 
women who die, die as a result of homicide.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit to my colleagues that this is a serious issue 
of violence, a serious issue of domestic violence, and it should not be 
clouded by concern about future legislation or potential legislation 
that some believe may try to overturn Roe v. Wade.
  Our ultimate concern here should be the real victims of crime. The 
real victims of crime continue to be women who are victims of domestic 
violence due to an outraged partner. The real victims of crime are 
their unborn children, who often are the cause of the violence directed 
towards the mother.

[[Page H1618]]

  Mr. Speaker, I submit to my colleagues that this is commonsense 
legislation. It is supported across the country, and it is 
constitutional.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that this 
Congress has apparently failed to take the opportunity to unite on 
something that I think we could agree on, namely, that it is wrong to 
assault women. It is wrong to assault pregnant women. It is a dreadful 
crime to cause a miscarriage through an assault on a woman. Instead of 
addressing these dreadful offenses we are back to that same old fight 
that divides this country, abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that there are Members of this House on both 
sides of the aisle who disagree on the question of abortion. Oftentimes 
those viewpoints are rooted in one's religious beliefs. I accept the 
fact that this country has disagreements about abortion.
  It is unacceptable that we would use the issue of violence against 
women and causing miscarriages as the entryway to having still another 
fight about choice.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the Unborn Victims of Violence Act will be 
found unconstitutional. The gentleman mentioned that there are State 
statutes that define a person as a zygote or an embryo, but those State 
statutes have not been tested in the Federal courts or in the Supreme 
Court, and are clearly at odds with Roe v. Wade. Instead we can adopt a 
substitute that will be offered later today that assures that any woman 
who is assaulted and, as a consequence of that assault, miscarries and 
loses her opportunity to have a much-wanted child, occasions a separate 
prosecution. We should not tolerate behavior that causes miscarriage.
  Any person who has lost a child, any person who has had a 
miscarriage, understands that is a devastating event that one never 
forgets and never gets over. I am hopeful that we can put the abortion 
debate to one side and reserve the argument about abortion for another 
day and come together with the Lofgren-Conyers substitute that will be 
offered later today and not entangle this very serious issue, of 
harming a pregnant woman, with that other fight, about abortion and 
choice.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I agree we ought to talk about abortion when an abortion bill comes 
up. You are not hearing about abortion from this side of the aisle. The 
other side of the aisle is bringing up the issue of abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). This has become an abortion debate 
because the other side of the aisle has made it such. They are so 
extreme and so afraid that they would lose their right to have an 
abortion, that they would even deny those unborn children that are 
killed by crime the rights that are due every other citizen in this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, Members should support this bill and oppose the Lofgren 
amendment because it fails to acknowledge when unborn children are 
killed, they have been murdered. Life and death should not be subsumed 
beneath some semantic fog. It is time that our society begin 
recognizing and defending both victims who are harmed when violent 
criminals attack pregnant women. Those who would artificially 
discriminate between lives lost to crime within and outside the womb 
draw empty and callous distinctions. All life is precious. Society must 
protect every victim of crime.
  Mr. Speaker, current Federal law devalues and denies significance to 
unborn children. This destructive precedence has two unfortunate 
consequences. First, current law accrues to the benefit of the 
murderous thugs who destroy the lives of unborn children. These 
criminals are not forced to atone for the young life that they have 
destroyed.
  Second, by denying a legal identity to unborn victims, we create a 
society that is coarser, less feeling and less than it would otherwise 
be. The law must not look upon a violent criminal's unborn victim with 
an indifferent eye. Every young life must be acknowledged. Every young 
life must be protected from predatory criminals.
  Of course society through manners and custom have always deferred to 
the care and comfort of pregnant women, but we would be callously 
deceived if we limited our heightened attention merely to the woman's 
physical condition without acknowledging a vital predicate. It is 
precisely because a woman carries the miracle of life within her that 
she becomes the most precious and treasured member of society. It is 
because two lives exist together that society seeks to protect the 
woman. And the law must protect both lives. The law cannot remain blind 
on this point.
  Mr. Speaker, let us take the logic underlying the opposition to this 
bill and apply it to the case of an elderly victim. It would be a truly 
repugnant idea to suggest that criminals should serve diminished 
sentences if they preyed on elderly victims with only a few years left 
to live. Fortunately, society does not draw this ugly distinction. We 
value and protect life until a person draws their final breath. It is 
intrinsically flawed reasoning leading to an equally gross injustice to 
deny explicit protection to an unborn person who is months, weeks, or 
even days from breathing his or her first breath.
  Society must extend the protection of a law to every vulnerable 
victim. The mothers of these murdered children see these crimes with 
the proper perceptive. In an all-too-common set of horrible 
circumstances, the criminal's unborn victim is actually the primary 
target when a murderer stalks a pregnant woman. Under current law, when 
an unborn victim is murdered, in the eyes of society, no one has died. 
That has to change in our society.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to end this awful and unconscionable 
oversight. This bill extends protection to every vulnerable victim in 
America. Support this bill so that society will acknowledge and defend 
every vulnerable American.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler), and ask him to yield to me.
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say to the gentleman from 
Texas, the very distinguished majority whip, before he leaves the floor 
that we do recognize and make prosecutable killers of women that are 
pregnant.
  Mr. Speaker, we create two separate crimes, so I do not want that 
misstated again unless you read the Lofgren-Conyers substitute. Two 
separate crimes, both prosecutable and will be prosecutable because 
they are constitutional.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill before us today because 
it is unnecessary, misguided and facially unconstitutional. The Supreme 
Court in Roe v. Wade clearly said, ``The unborn have never been 
recognized in the whole sense,'' and concluded that ``person,'' as used 
in the 14th amendment of the Constitution, does not include the unborn.

                              {time}  1130

  As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) just made clear in his speech 
a moment ago, as everybody I have heard on the other side has made 
clear in their speeches, the whole purpose of this bill is precisely to 
label the unborn fetus or zygote or blastocyst as a person in the whole 
sense of the word. That is their purpose. Therefore, it is an abortion 
debate, because if it is murder to cause a miscarriage of a zygote or a 
fetus, then logically it is murder to perform an abortion. That is why 
we are debating abortion, and that is why they are debating abortion, 
whether they admit it or not.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a lot today about violence to 
fetuses, embryos, zygotes, blastocysts. We will hear a lot about 
horrific acts of violence perpetrated against women at advanced stages 
of pregnancy, causing injury to the fetus. The sponsors will claim, 
even though this bill addresses only violence against fetuses, that 
this bill is really being considered to protect the welfare of these 
women.
  We should have no illusions about the purposes of this bill, that it 
is yet another battle in a war of symbols in the abortion debate in 
which opponents of a woman's constitutional right to choose attempt to 
portray fetuses from

[[Page H1619]]

the earliest moments of conception as children with the same rights as 
the adult women who are carrying them. The implication is that anyone 
who does not share the metaphysical slant of the radical antichoice 
movement that a two-celled zygote is a person on exactly the same basis 
and with the same rights as a child or adult must secretly favor 
infanticide.
  This bill, by making the destruction of a fetus or even a zygote, a 
separate crime of murder without reference to the actual harm to the 
pregnant woman speaks volumes about that view. If causing a miscarriage 
is murder, then by implication so is abortion. Even if the sponsors 
have papered over this premise with language to the contrary, no one 
should be under any illusions that this is the real and only purpose of 
this bill.
  Let us take the sponsors at their word. In the last Congress, the 
report of the majority of the Committee on the Judiciary made clear 
that their concern was that ``except in those States that recognize 
unborn children as victims of such crimes, injuring or killing an 
unborn child during the commission of a violent crime has no legal 
consequence whatsoever,'' and that the bill's purpose was ``to narrow 
the gap in the law by providing that an individual who kills an unborn 
child during the commission of certain Federal crimes of violence will 
be guilty of a separate offense.'' Providing such a separate offense 
clearly recognizes the fetus as the victim of the violence, a 
proposition that is at odds with the holding of the Supreme Court in 
reading the Constitution.
  In fact, this legislation marks a major departure from Federal law by 
elevating the legal status of a fetus at all stages of prenatal 
development to the same as that of the pregnant woman or any other 
person who is the victim of a crime. This is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It is 
against the whole scheme of Roe v. Wade, which recognizes a greater 
ability of the States to regulate, a greater interest in regulation in 
later stages of pregnancy, precisely because the Constitution 
recognizes that a fetus is not a full-fledged person from the moment of 
conception.
  For anyone still in doubt about the real purpose of the bill, the 
National Right to Life Committee, in a memo distributed to members of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, laid it out:
  They say that such a one-victim amendment, talking about the Lofgren 
amendment, would codify the fiction that when a criminal assailant 
injures a mother and kills her unborn child, there has been only a 
compound injury to the mother but no loss of any human life. The one-
victim substitute would also enact the notion that when a criminal 
assailant kills a pregnant woman, the assailant should be punished once 
for killing the mother and then again for depriving her of her 
pregnancy, but if there is only one victim, it shows the difference 
between us.
  So the radical antichoice groups acknowledge that the only difference 
of opinion here is not how much to punish these offenses, because both 
this bill and the Lofgren substitute would give heavy punishment, 
although under certain circumstances, the Lofgren substitute would give 
much heavier punishment than would this bill; the real difference is 
that this bill recognizes the crime of murder against a fetus or a 
zygote.
  The bill is also unclear, as one of the majority's witnesses 
testified in the committee hearings. Does it cover only an embryo after 
implantation or at conception? Put another way, is it only murder if 
you cause the miscarriage of a viable fetus? Or is it also murder if 
you cause the miscarriage of a not-yet-viable fetus or of a two-celled 
zygote at the moment of conception?
  I think the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham), should tell us what the bill means. It is a 
simple question that should have a simple, straightforward answer. Yet 
I used my entire 5 minutes at the Committee on the Judiciary trying to 
get an answer from the gentleman from South Carolina. He would not give 
me an answer.
  So I will ask him now, yes or no, is it murder to murder a two-celled 
zygote under this bill or is it not?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, as I said in the Committee on the Judiciary, 
the language that we adopted in the bill is exactly what exists----
  Mr. NADLER. Yes or no. I do not have the time to have the whole 
explanation that is taken from the language of State law. Is causing a 
miscarriage murder of a two-celled zygote or not under this bill? Yes 
or no.
  Mr. GRAHAM. When the fetus attaches to the womb, that is what the 
prosecutor has to prove.
  And if I may answer your question, the definition used in this bill 
is the exact same definition that the House endorsed and passed 417-0 
that the gentleman from New York voted for. This is the same definition 
that he voted for July 25, 2000.
  Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, he will not give a yes or no answer 
because he cannot.
  One last sentence on this whole thing. This bill is not about 
violence against women. That is why all the violence against women 
groups are opposed to the bill. This bill is simply to undermine Roe v. 
Wade, and it will not succeed.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, look at this picture of Tracy Marciniak and 
her dead son. This little boy is not a zygote, not a blastocyst, not an 
embryo, not a fetus, not anything but a little baby, a little child who 
was brutally killed. His name was Zachariah. He was killed by his 
father, a man by the name of Glendale Black, 4 days before he was due 
to be born. He was beaten in the womb where he bled to death. And his 
father got away with it.
  Yes, Glendale Black went to jail, but not because he killed 
Zachariah. He went to jail for assaulting Zachariah's mother. At the 
time, it was not a crime to kill a woman's baby in Wisconsin as long as 
he did it before he was born. If he had done it 4 or 5 days later, he 
might have gotten life imprisonment. Instead, he is now eligible for 
parole.
  Wisconsin has since changed its law. If Tracy's ex-husband committed 
the same crime today, he would be charged with killing her child as 
well as assaulting her. But the Federal Government has no such law. In 
Federal jurisdictions, that man could get away with killing again.
  Look again at this picture. How can anyone say that this child is not 
a human being? How can anyone say that Zachariah should not have the 
same right to live as you and I have? How can anyone say that the crime 
Zachariah's father committed was not more than just assault, but also 
taking of human life? Or as his mother Tracy herself says, ``If you 
really think that nobody died that night, then vote for the one-victim 
amendment. But please remember Zachariah's name and face when you 
decide.''
  Mr. Speaker, America's first war was fought to prove that each of us 
has an inalienable right to life as well as liberty and pursuit of 
happiness. We need to affirm that we still believe in these principles. 
We need to show that we still believe in God-given rights, the right to 
life. We need to pass this good legislation. We need to pass it 
unanimously. And we should reject the so-called one-victim amendment. 
Pretending that nobody died the night Glendale Black beat his wife and 
killed his son is to deny reality. Even worse, it is to turn our backs 
on everything America stands for.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I wanted to comment on the terrible crime that we just had a 
discussion of from the prior speaker. Clearly that was a horrible 
thing, and the monster who did that is now free. That is the wrong 
thing. That should be changed.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 503 would not change a darned thing about that 
case. I understand from the mother that part of the problem with the 
prosecution was that the prosecutors could not prove the intent to harm 
the unborn child. Under H.R. 503, there is also an intent requirement. 
Otherwise, absent intent, one is limited to the term of

[[Page H1620]]

years of the underlying offense. In order to have Federal jurisdiction, 
the only assault that is cited in the bill is assault against a Federal 
officer.
  So passing this bill would not prevent that terrible, terrible 
tragedy. I just thought it was important to note that.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
her statement, her leadership on this, and also the ranking member's.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and 
urge its rejection. Some Members on the other side of the aisle today 
have indicated that they do not believe that it is a direct attack on 
Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record editorials from the New York 
Times entitled ``Reproductive Rights Under Attack,'' and also 
editorials from the 1999 debate from the Washington Post, the St. 
Petersburg Times, and the Seattle Times, all in direct opposition to 
this bill. And all point out that it is a direct assault on Roe v. 
Wade.
  The material referred to follows:

                       [From the New York Times]

                    Reproductive Rights Under Attack

       Congressional opponents of abortion have no appetite for a 
     direct and politically unpopular assault on Roe v. Wade. So 
     they are pursuing other legislative strategies that would 
     undermine women's reproductive freedom. One of the most 
     deceptive of these schemes is the benign-sounding Unborn 
     Victims of Violence Act, which is expected to come up for a 
     vote in the House this week.
       Packaged as a crime-fighting measure unrelated to abortion, 
     the bill is actually aimed at fulfilling a longtime goal of 
     the right-to-life movement. The goal is to enshrine in law 
     the concept of ``fetal rights,'' equal to but separate and 
     distinct from the rights of pregnant women. In essence, the 
     bill would elevate the status of a fetus, embryo or other so-
     called ``unborn child'' to that of a ``person'' by amending 
     the Federal criminal code to add a separate offense for 
     causing death or bodily injury to a ``child'' who is ``in 
     utero.'' The penalty would be equal to that imposed for 
     injuring the woman herself and would apply from the earliest 
     stage of gestation, whether or not the perpetrator knew of 
     the pregnancy.
       The vote this week represents a serious test. An identical 
     bill passed the House last year by a 254-to-172 vote, and its 
     present sponsors are plainly hoping the arrival of a new 
     anti-choice administration will help gain passage this time 
     around in the Senate.
       Violence against women that results in compromising a 
     pregnancy is a terrible crime. It may well deserve stiffer 
     penalties, which some states have already imposed. But the 
     bill's sponsors are more interested in furthering a political 
     agenda than in preventing and punishing criminal conduct. 
     Lawmakers who care for Roe v. Wade have no business voting 
     for this disingenuous legislation.
                                  ____


         Editorials Against ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act''

                [From the Washington Post, Oct. 2, 1999]

       ``While the bill specifically exempts abortion; it is a 
     clever, if transparent effort to establish a foothold in the 
     law for the idea that killing a fetus can be murder. What 
     makes this bill a bad idea is the very aspect of it that 
     makes it attractive to its supporters: that it treats the 
     fetus as a person separate from the mother, though that same 
     mother has a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. 
     This is a useful rhetorical device for the pro-life world. 
     But it is analytically incoherent.''
                                  ____


             [From the St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 2, 1999]

       ``The bill's sponsors . . . claim the measure is not an 
     attack on reproductive freedom, but a bill to fight crime. 
     They point to the bill's exceptions for legal abortion 
     providers, medical caregivers and the mother herself as proof 
     that it's not anti-abortion. They are being disingenuous. . . 
     . The public not be fooled. This bill is about abortion, not 
     crime.''
                                  ____


                [From the Seattle Times, Sept. 28, 1999]

       ``It would make sense for Congress to enhance penalties for 
     crimes against pregnant women, especially since pregnancy 
     greatly increases a woman's risk of domestic assault. It does 
     not make sense for Congress to exploit one critical health 
     issue--violence against women--to erode women's reproductive 
     rights. Its ludicrous to separate the pregnancy from the 
     woman. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that reproductive 
     freedom is part of the constitutional right to privacy; the 
     state can claim compelling interest only after the fetus can 
     survive outside the womb. For a quarter century, the price of 
     such freedom has been constant vigilance against laws like 
     this.''
                                  ____


               [From the New York Times, Sept. 14, 1999]

       ``Congressional opponents of abortion rights have come up 
     with yet another scheme to advance their agenda. . . . [T]he 
     measure aims to chip away at women's reproductive freedom by 
     granting new legal status to unborn children--under the 
     deceptively benign guise of fighting crime . . . . By 
     creating a separate legal status for fetuses, the bill's 
     supporters are plainly hoping to build a foundation for a 
     fresh legal assault on the constitutional underprintings of 
     the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. Sending the nation 
     down a legal path that could undermine the privacy rights of 
     women is not a reasonable way to protect women or deter 
     crime.''

  We should call for ``truth in Advertising.'' The sponsors make it 
sound like they want to protect the fetus. Yet the definition is so 
broad that it would cover three cells. Make no mistake, this is an 
attack on a woman's right to choose, and now we know clearly and 
squarely where the Bush administration stands.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Statement of Administration 
Policy on this bill.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                   Washington, DC, April 24, 2001.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

    (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned 
                               agencies)


            h.r. 503--Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001

                 (Rep. Graham (R) SC and 95 cosponsors)

       The Administration supports protection for unborn children 
     and therefore supports House passage of H.R. 503. The 
     legislation would make it a separate Federal offense to cause 
     death or bodily injury to a child, who is in utero, in the 
     course of committing any one of 68 Federal offenses. The bill 
     also would make substantially identical amendments to the 
     Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Administration would 
     strongly oppose any amendment to H.R. 503, such as a so-
     called ``One-Victim'' Substitute, which would define the 
     bill's crimes as having only one victim--the pregnant woman.

  I might add, why are we here today? The Bush administration has told 
us that their top priority is education. Where is the education bill? 
The Bush administration has told us that they care about the Patients' 
Bill of Rights to protect our seniors. Where is the Patients' Bill of 
Rights bill?
  But what we get on the floor is an attack on a woman's right to 
choose, attack on her health and on her privacy. That is what we get. I 
ask my colleagues, is that compassionate?
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that this is 
not a pro-life statement, it is not an attack on choice, but the 
Traditional Values Coalition, on their Web site, I pulled it off today; 
they state and I quote, ``Enactment of the bill would be a landmark 
pro-life victory by recognizing the rights of the unborn.''
  I include for the Record the pro-life organization's statement.

      Victory: Unborn Victims of Violence Act Passes in the House

       Criminals who murder or assault a pregnant woman will now 
     be held accountable to the violence inflicted on both 
     victims, the mother and her unborn child. This week the 
     Unborn Victims of Violence Act, sponsored by Representative 
     Lindsey Graham (R-SC), passed the House of Representatives by 
     a vote of 254-172. This bill recognizes that an unborn child 
     who is injured or killed during the commission of a federal 
     crime is a human victim, and the assailant could then be 
     punished for the harm caused to this most vulnerable victim. 
     This bill provides vital protection for expecting mothers and 
     their unborn children. We applaud the House for passing such 
     important legislation.
       The House also rejected an attempt to water down the 
     original act by opposing a substitute amendment offered by 
     Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) by a vote of 201-224. This 
     victory is one step further in bringing justice for ALL 
     humans, born and unborn.
       Regrettably, the United States federal criminal law does 
     not give unborn children the rights of personhood. Currently, 
     a person can attack a pregnant woman, causing the death of 
     her child and only be prosecuted for the assault on the 
     mother! It is a federal crime to attack, injure, or kill a 
     woman, but it is not considered a federal crime to do the 
     same to the unborn child of the woman. However, legislation 
     introduced by Representative Lindsey Graham (R-SC) proposes 
     to recognize the humanity of unborn children by using the 
     same standard to punish violence enacted upon the unborn as 
     any other person. This major pro-life bill would protect 
     unborn children from acts of violence and enactment of the 
     bill would be a landmark pro-life victory by recognizing the 
     rights of the unborn.

  This bill treats a fetus as separate from the mother, though that 
mother has a constitutional right to abortion. This bill does not 
protect women in any way. In fact, there is nothing in the bill about 
punishing the perpetrator for the crime against the woman. That is why 
the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence opposes this bill. 
According to experts,

[[Page H1621]]

current Federal law already provides authority for the punishment of 
criminals that harm fetuses.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the statement from Ronald 
Weich, a former Special Counsel, U.S. Sentencing Commission, that goes 
into further detail.

 Testimony of Ronald Weich, Zuckerman Spaeder, L.L.P., Former Special 
  Counsel, U.S. Sentencing Commission, Before the Subcommittee on the 
  Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary, March 15, 2001

       Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: My name is 
     Ronald Weich and I am a partner in the law firm of Zuckerman 
     Spaeder LLP. I respectfully request that this written 
     statement appear in the record of the Subcommittee's hearing 
     on H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001.\1\
       In this statement I analyze the criminal law and sentencing 
     implications of the pending bill. I bring several 
     qualifications to this task. From 1983 to 1987 I worked as an 
     Assistant District Attorney in New York City, where I 
     prosecuted a wide array of criminal cases. Thereafter I 
     served as Special Counsel to the United States Sentencing 
     Commission and participated in drafting amendments to the 
     federal sentencing guidelines. I then served on the staff of 
     several Senate committees where I assisted in the development 
     of federal crime and sentencing policy. I am now in private 
     practice, but I continue to serve on the advisory board of 
     the Federal Sentencing Reporter, a scholarly journal in which 
     I have frequently published articles on sentencing law and 
     policy. I am also a member of the Criminal Justice Council of 
     the American Bar Association.\2\
       After reviewing H.R. 503 in light of my experience in the 
     criminal justice system, my knowledge of the federal 
     sentencing guidelines and an examination of relevant case 
     law, I reach one basic conclusion: this bill is unnecessary. 
     Current federal law provides ample authority for the 
     punishment of criminals who hurt fetuses. H.R. 503 adds 
     nothing meaningful to the charging arsenal of federal 
     prosecutors or the sentencing options available to federal 
     judges.
       Because the bill is unnecessary from a criminal law 
     perspective, I suspect that its purpose, instead, is to score 
     rhetorical points in the perennial struggle over abortion 
     rights. For reasons that I will explain, I object to the use 
     of the federal criminal code as a battlefield in the abortion 
     wars.
       I will first describe why the bill is unnecessary in light 
     of current federal law and then explain why I believe it is 
     an unwise addition to federal law.


                       I. H.R. 503 is unnecessary

       Current federal law already provides sufficient authority 
     to punish the conduct that H.R. 503 purports to punish.
       At the outset it should be understood that very few violent 
     crimes are prosecuted in the federal courts. Most street 
     level violent crimes are prosecuted under state law by state 
     prosecutors in state courts. Under our constitutional system, 
     federal criminal jurisdiction only exists if the crime 
     implicates federal civil rights or interstate commerce--which 
     few violent crimes do--or if the crime occurs on a federal 
     enclave such as a federal office building, a military base or 
     an Indian reservation. Thus there are only a handful of 
     federal murder and assault prosecutions each year, and most 
     of those involve Native Americans.
       H.R. 503 targets relatively rare conduct to begin with, 
     namely criminal assault on a fetus. And in the federal 
     context, that rare conduct is even more unusual. I researched 
     federal case law and found only one reported case in recent 
     years in which the victim of the offense of conviction was a 
     fetus. In that case, U.S. v. Spencer, 839 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 
     1988), the Native American defendant assaulted a pregnant 
     woman on an Indian reservation, kicking and stabbing her in 
     the abdomen. The woman was successfully treated for life-
     threatening injuries, but her fetus was born alive and then 
     died. The Ninth Circuit upheld the defendant's conviction 
     under the federal murder statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1111. Thus, 
     even without the help of H.R. 503, a federal defendant was 
     successfully prosecuted for murdering a fetus.
       The Spencer decision is significant for several reasons. 
     First, it illustrates how rare such cases are in the federal 
     system--the court refers to the issue of federal criminal 
     liability for fetal death as one of ``first impression'' 
     and in the 13 years since it was decided, the issue 
     decided in Spencer appears not to have arisen in another 
     reported federal case. There is no crime wave of federal 
     fetal assaults crying out for a legislative solution. But 
     should this rare scenario present itself in federal court 
     again, Spencer stands for the proposition that criminal 
     liability may be imposed under current federal law.
       The Spencer court relies on the well established common law 
     doctrine, developed in state courts, that fetal death 
     subsequent to birth due to fetal injuries may be prosecuted 
     as homicide. See, Annotation, Homicide Based on Killing of 
     Unborn Child, 64 A.L.R. 5th 671 (1998). Among the many state 
     cases upholding homicide convictions for assaults that 
     resulted in the death of a fetus are William v. State, 561 
     A.2d 216 (Maryland 1989); State v. Cornelius, 448 N.W.2d 434 
     (Wisconsin 1989); People v. Hall, 158 A.D.2D 69 (New York 
     App. Div. 1st Dept. 1990); and State v. Cotton, 5 P.3d918 
     (Arizona 2000).
       The broad support for this rule in the state courts does 
     not argue for its necessity in the federal code, since state 
     law of this nature is incorporated into federal law by the 
     Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 13, when the crime 
     occurs in a federal enclave such as a military base. That was 
     the basis on which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 
     recently upheld the homicide conviction of Gregory Robbins 
     for beating his wife and thereby causing the termination of 
     her pregnancy. U.S. v. Robbins, 52 M.J. 159 (1999). 
     Proponents of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act had argued 
     in 1999 that the Robbins case, then pending, demonstrated the 
     need for a new federal law, but the successful outcome of the 
     prosecution shows precisely the opposite: current federal law 
     is sufficient.
       Analytically separate from the question of criminal 
     liability is the question of punishment. Here again, current 
     federal law is sufficient. There is no dispute that causing 
     harm to a fetus during the commission of a federal felony 
     should generally result in enhanced punishment, and courts 
     have uniformly held that such enhancements are available 
     under the current sentencing guidelines. For example, in both 
     U.S. v. Peoples, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 27067 (9th Cir. 1997) 
     and U.S. v. Winzer, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 29640 (9th Cir. 
     1998), the court held that assaulting a pregnant woman during 
     a bank robbery could lead to a two level enhancement 
     (approximately a 25% increase) under Sec. 2B1.1(b)(3)(A) of 
     the Guidelines relating to physical injury. In U.S. v. James, 
     139 F.3d 709 (9th Cir. 1998), the court held that a pregnant 
     woman may be treated as a ``vulnerable victim'' under 
     Sec. 3A1.1 of the Guidelines, again leading to a two level 
     sentencing enhancement for the defendant. And in United 
     States v. Manuel, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 14946 (9th Cir. 1993), 
     the court held that the defendant's prior conviction for 
     assaulting his pregnant wife warranted an upward departure 
     from the applicable guideline range for his subsequent 
     assault conviction.
       While there have been no federal death penalty prosecutions 
     of civilians in recent years involving fetal assaults, the 
     military justice system treats the murder victim's pregnancy 
     as an aggravating factor to be considered during the capital 
     sentencing phase of a trial. United States v. Thomas, 43 M.J. 
     550 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Ct. of Crim. App. 1995). This 
     holding follows state law precedents in which the pregnancy 
     of the victim is a statutory aggravator in capital cases. 
     See, e.g., Del. Code Ann. Tit. 11, Sec. 4209(e)(1)(p) (Supp. 
     1986).
       In sum, H.R. 503 is unnecessary because federal case law 
     and the federal sentencing guidelines, building on well-
     established common law principles, already authorize serious 
     punishment for the harm that the bill seeks to address.


       II. H.R. 503 IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

       To say that H.R. 503 is unnecessary does not end the 
     inquiry. As members of the Judiciary Committee are aware, the 
     federal criminal code is characterized by much redundancy, 
     and one more criminal law prohibiting what is elsewhere 
     prohibited would barely add to the thicket. But for three 
     reasons, H.R. 503 would not only constitute an unnecessary 
     addition to the Code, it would also be an undesirable 
     addition.
       First, the bill has been drafted in a structurally unsound 
     manner and will lead to considerable confusion and 
     litigation. To be convicted under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1841, the 
     new criminal offense created by H.R. 503, a defendant must 
     have ``engage[d] in conduct that violates'' one of the 
     existing federal crimes enumerated in Sec. 1841(b). But must 
     the defendant be convicted of one of those other offenses 
     before he may be convicted of the separate offense under 
     Sec. 1841? That is a fair reading of the text, but the answer 
     is not without doubt. There is already considerable 
     controversy and resource-draining litigation in the federal 
     courts over whether various title 18 provisions constitute 
     separate offenses requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt 
     or sentencing enhancements requiring only proof by a 
     preponderance of evidence, see, e.g. Appendix v. New Jersey, 
     530 U.S. 466 (2000); Jones v. United States, 119 S. Ct. 1215 
     (1999). H.R. 503 would add to this confusion if there were 
     ever a prosecution under the new criminal provision it 
     establishes.
       This problem could be addressed if, instead of creating a 
     new criminal offense, H.R. 503 merely directed the Sentencing 
     Commission to either establish a new sentencing enhancement 
     when the victim of the crime is a pregnant woman, or make 
     clear that a pregnant woman may be considered a ``vulnerable 
     victim'' under existing Sec. 3A1.1 of the Sentencing 
     Guidelines. As demonstrated above, the generic provisions of 
     the Guidelines already accomplish this result. But at least a 
     sentencing enhancement bill would not foster confusion and 
     litigation.
       Second, H.R. 503 is overbroad. To begin with, it 
     incorporates by reference an unduly broad definition of 
     ``bodily injury'' from 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1365. Whereas the 
     common law rule applied to termination of the pregnancy, H.R. 
     503 would make it a violation of federal law to cause 
     ``physical pain'' to the fetus or ``any other injury to the 
     [fetus], no matter how temporary.'' 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1365(g)(4). That definition may make sense in the 
     consumer safety context from which it derives, but it is 
     bizarre and extreme in the prenatal context of H.R. 503. 
     Further, H.R. 503 applies to all fetuses, not merely those 
     that are viable, and explicitly applies to unintentional as 
     well as intentional conduct. The common law rule, evolved 
     over centuries of Anglo-

[[Page H1622]]

     American jurisprudence, is that an assault causing the death 
     of a viable (or, in the archaic phrase, ``quickened'') fetus 
     gives rise to criminal liability. The rule in H.R. 503 is 
     that an assault unintentionally causing ``pain'' to a weeks-
     old fetus gives rise to criminal liability.\3\
       Third, the bill is a transparent effort to undermine Roe v. 
     Wade. Since H.R. 503 adds nothing meaningful to substantive 
     federal criminal law, its purpose is purely symbolic: to 
     bestow statutory personhood on fetuses, even those that are 
     not viable.
       It is no accident that the bill says nothing about injuries 
     to pregnant women; instead the newly created title is styled 
     ``Protection of Unborn Children.'' An assault on a fetus 
     cannot occur without an assault on the pregnant women, but 
     the bill is deliberately framed in terms that ignore the 
     woman. To be sure, there is an explicit exception to the 
     criminal penalties in the bill for ``conduct relating to an 
     abortion'' but make no mistake--this bill is just one more 
     step in the anti-abortion movement's methodical strategy to 
     humanize fetuses, marginalize women, demonize abortion 
     providers, and make the image of abortion less palatable to 
     the American people. The extreme overbreadth of H.R. 503 
     flows directly from that strategy.
       The validity of the constitutional protections established 
     in Roe v. Wade exceeds the scope of this testimony and is 
     beyond my field of expertise. But as someone who cares 
     about the integrity of the criminal law, I regret that 
     this skirmish in the abortion wars flares up unnecessarily 
     in the federal criminal code. The criminal justice system 
     is built on ancient principles such as proportionality of 
     punishment and the requirement that a wrongdoer have acted 
     with intent to cause harm (mens rea). In ignoring these 
     principles, H.R. 503 is an unsound piece of crime 
     legislation.
       Because I believe H.R. 503 to be both unnecessary and 
     unwise, I urge the subcommittee to reject it.


                                 Notes

       \1\ On July 21, 1999, I testified before this Subcommittee 
     in person regarding H.R. 2436, the version of the Unborn 
     Victims of Violence Act introduced in the 106th Congress. 
     Because H.R. 2436 and the pending H.R. 503 are substantially 
     the same, my testimony this year substantially duplicates the 
     testimony I previously provided. Nonetheless, I wish this 
     statement to appear in the record of the current hearing so 
     that it is available to members of Congress considering the 
     pending bill.
       \2\ I wish to make clear that I am not testifying on behalf 
     of the American Bar Association or any other entity with 
     which I am affiliated. Nor am I testifying on behalf of any 
     of my law or lobbying clients. For example, it is a matter of 
     public record that I have represented Planned Parenthood 
     Federation of America (PPFA) with respect to pharmaceutical 
     pricing issues, but I do not represent PPFA at this hearing. 
     The views I express herein are strictly my own.
       \3\ The bill's new Sec. 1841(a) defines the term ``unborn 
     child'' tautologically as ``a child in utero.'' Unless the 
     drafters of H.R. 2426 intend to word ``child'' to imply 
     viability, the bill would apply to conduct that impacted a 
     first trimester pregnancy. Whether an ``unborn child'' of 
     such gestational age constitutes a human being raises 
     constitutional issues beyond the scope of this testimony.

  Mr. Speaker, this bill really has nothing to do with protecting a 
fetus and it has everything to do with taking away a woman's right to 
choose. That is why all the women's organizations, that is why all the 
domestic violence organizations oppose it, but the Bush administration 
supports it. It is a sham, it is aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade, it 
is further aimed at marginalizing female victims, and it is plainly 
unnecessary.
  It is plainly wrong. I urge a no vote against this antiwoman bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, on July 25, 2000, the House of Representatives, by a 
vote of 417-0, passed the Innocent Child Protection Act. This bill 
would prohibit either the Federal Government or any State from 
executing a woman while she carries a child in utero. That bill defined 
``child in utero'' in the same language as the legislation that is 
before us.

                              {time}  1145

  We heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and others, talk 
about two-cell zygotes and other terms that have been used during the 
development of the Homo sapiens, but the protection that was given to 
the child in utero by the bill that passed last year by a vote of 417-
0, I have the roll call here. I noticed the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) endorsed this definition when it came to the death 
penalty, as did the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). Why should we not use the 
same definition that everybody endorsed last year when it came to 
executing pregnant women at the State and Federal level in the 
legislation that sets up this separate crime?
  I intend to be consistent in my votes by voting for this definition 
in this bill, as I did last year for the definition in the other bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a new Member of this body in strong 
support of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, offered by my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. Speaker, it amazes this new Member that there are those who 
oppose this initiative before the House, which is simply an effort to 
defend unborn children from violence. Do we not all have an interest in 
protecting mothers and their children from violent attackers? Who in 
this House has not read a story in the newspaper about an expectant 
mother like that described by the Committee on the Judiciary chairman, 
the story of Shawana Pace whose boyfriend paid to have her assaulted 
and because of that abuse she lost her child? The outrage and the anger 
of the public after these events demands that we take action.
  Mr. Speaker, the opposition, in their zeal to prevent this bill from 
becoming law, would have us believe that punishing criminals for 
existing Federal crimes would compromise the rights of mothers. This 
premise is simply wrong. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act 
specifically targets not women or women's rights, but criminals who 
cause death or harm to an unborn child while committing one of 63 
existing Federal crimes.
  As the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) observed, the Journal 
of the American Medical Association published a recent study that found 
that homicide is the most common cause of death among pregnant women in 
Maryland. A week later, JAMA published another study that found that 6 
percent of all pregnant women in North Carolina are abused while they 
are pregnant.
  Despite these alarming facts, Federal law does not punish criminals 
who prey on pregnant women simply because they are pregnant.
  The alternative to this bill to be offered later today fails to 
address a central cause of violence against pregnant women because it 
fails to recognize that the child is often the primary target of the 
assailant.
  Mr. Speaker, by protecting the child we protect the mother. It is a 
fundamental axiom of Western civilization, the belief in the sanctity 
of human life. By failing to recognize crimes against the life of the 
unborn child, we place not only one life at risk but two. We must 
correct this oversight in Federal law and ensure that criminals who 
prey on pregnant women and their unborn children pay the appropriate 
penalty for their crimes.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Unborn Victims of Violence 
Act. This Congress should seize this opportunity to extend the 
protection of the law to the most defenseless in our society.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SOLIS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Solis) for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) 
was the one that said that H.R. 503 is a two-victim bill. The bill on 
the floor is not a two-victim bill. The bill only recognizes one 
victim, the embryo or the fetus. Harm to the woman does not factor into 
the bill at all. The bill does not require prosecution of the crime 
against the woman, and so to call it a two-victim bill is a fallacy.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to join my Democratic 
colleagues and rise in strong opposition to H.R. 503, the so-called 
Unborn Victims of Violence Act. While the bill supporters claim that 
they want to protect pregnant women from crime, their bill does no such 
thing. Instead, the bill recognizes for the first time a fetus as a 
person, with rights separate and equal to that of a woman.

[[Page H1623]]

  I am disappointed that the sponsors of H.R. 503 would play politics 
with the issue of women's safety. Of course we can all agree that 
pregnant women deserve protection against crime and violence, but we 
all hold very different beliefs on a woman's right to choose. Therefore 
it is simply irresponsible to confuse the two issues in H.R. 503, as 
this does.
  That is why I am not voting for H.R. 503 in favor of the substitute 
amendment, which will be offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren). The Lofgren substitute, the Motherhood 
Protection Act, increases the penalty for attacking a pregnant woman. 
Let us work together to pass something we can all agree on, rather than 
playing politics, and let us preserve women's safety.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 503 and support the Lofgren 
substitute.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  (Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, back in September of 1999, when this bill 
came before us, one of the opponents of the bill said this, because the 
criminal attack on a woman causing her to lose a child and an abortion 
are too easy to confuse, we need to vote against this bill.
  Now we are again hearing today that it is hard to distinguish between 
a criminal attack on a woman which kills her baby and an abortion. But 
I say, I think the American people can distinguish between the two of 
those, and I think Members of this body can. We also heard today, and 
we heard in that earlier argument, that this bill would do a dangerous 
thing. It would recognize the legal status of an unborn child.
  Now that is pretty dangerous, is it not, recognizing the legal status 
of an unborn child?
  Is an unborn child illegal? Are they born into the world illegal? 
When do they pass from illegal to legal? I think if a mother wants to 
have a child, wants to have that child born, wants to raise that child, 
that child is legal.
  I want to talk about something else, something else that the 
opponents I do not think would want to talk about, and I think this is 
particularly telling, it is an article in the March 2001 Journal of 
American Medicine, and it simply says one thing, the disturbing finding 
that a pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more likely to be a 
victim of homicide than due to any other cause. In other words, a 
pregnant woman is more likely to be a victim of homicide than die of 
any other cause.
  It compared that to nonpregnant women in the same age group, and that 
was the fifth leading cause of death.
  As that article asks the question, we ought to ask the same question. 
Only by having a clear understanding of the magnitude of pregnancy-
associated mortality can there be comprehensive prevention.
  In other words, pregnant women are victims of homicide in a far 
greater percentage than nonpregnant women. We need to understand that 
if we are to prevent it.
  How do we prevent it? Why does one think pregnant women are five 
times more likely to die of a homicide in this study and in an earlier 
study in the Journal of Public Health and in two studies in obstetrics 
and gynecology? I would submit that the fact they are pregnant is 
making them a target. These studies certainly say that they are a 
target. This bill, and I praise the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham) for offering it, it is a needed step to help what has become an 
attack on pregnant women.

             Remarks Upon Passage of Bill in 106th Congress

       Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Unborn 
     Victims of Violence Act and opposed to the amendment.
       We have heard some very interesting statements out here on 
     the floor today. One of the opponents of this act said we 
     ought to vote against this act because, and let me quote, 
     ``because the criminal attack on a woman causing her to lose 
     a child, and an abortion, it is too easy to confuse the 
     two.''
       In other words, a criminal attack on a woman which causes 
     her to lose her unborn child, she said the only difference in 
     that and an abortion is, she says, the result is the same 
     except for the criminal intent, and we cannot always 
     determine the difference.
       Now, do my colleagues buy that? Do my colleagues buy that 
     this Congress or the American people cannot distinguish 
     between a criminal attack on a woman which causes her to lose 
     her unborn child and an abortion? I do not think so. I think 
     that is ludicrous.
       Another reason we were told to vote against this act, we 
     were told that the Federal court or the Federal jurisdiction 
     may have jurisdiction over the mother, but they might not 
     have jurisdiction over the unborn child.
       In other words, an FBI agent who is pregnant, we can try 
     someone for assaulting her or murdering her, but not her 
     unborn child, because that would not be a Federal act.
       Well, what do we do in those cases? Do we always try those? 
     Would we try them, as that person who opposes it said, we 
     ought to try that case in the State court? Of course not. 
     That is ludicrous.
       The final thing, which is probably the worst, is this 
     statement, and I say this with respect to all Members: that 
     this is the first occasion that this Congress or this Supreme 
     Court has ever recognized the legal status of an unborn 
     child. If we pass this act, we will be recognizing the legal 
     status of an unborn child.
       Well I ask you, is it an illegal status? Are unborn 
     children illegal?
       How about an unborn child whose mother has made a decision 
     to keep that child? She wants to keep that child. She wants 
     to have that child. She wants to raise that child. Is there 
     anything wrong with recognizing the legal status of that 
     child? Should that child have no status, no rights? Of course 
     not.
                                  ____


                      [From JAMA, March 21, 2001]

  Enhanced Surveillance for Pregnancy-Associated Mortality--Maryland, 
                               1993-1998

                 (By Isabelle L. Horon and Diana Cheng)

       Complete and accurate identification of all deaths 
     associated with pregnancy is a critical first step in the 
     prevention of such deaths. Only by having a clear 
     understanding of the magnitude of pregnancy-associated 
     mortality can comprehensive prevention strategies be 
     formulated to prevent these unanticipated deaths among 
     primarily young, healthy women.
       Death statistics compiled through the National Vital 
     Statistics System by the National Center for Health 
     Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are a 
     major source of data on deaths occurring during pregnancy and 
     in the postpartum period. Original death certificates from 
     which state and national vital statistics are derived are 
     filed in and maintained by individual states. Causes of death 
     on death certificates are reported by attending physicians 
     or, under certain circumstances such as death from external 
     trauma or unexplained death, by medical examiners or 
     coroners.
       The National Center for Health Statistics is required to 
     use the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of a 
     maternal death for preparation of mortality data. According 
     to the WHO definition, a maternal death is ``the death of a 
     woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of 
     pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and the site of the 
     pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the 
     pregnancy or its management but not from accidental or 
     incidental causes.'' \1\ This definition includes deaths 
     assigned to the cause ``complication of pregnancy, 
     childbirth, and the puerperium'' (International 
     Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision [ICD-9] codes 630-
     676).
       Death records are an important source of data on pregnancy 
     mortality because they are routinely collected by the states 
     and are comparable over time and across the nation. However, 
     there are several limitations to using these data to identify 
     all deaths associated with pregnancy. First, the cause-of-
     death information provided on these records is sometimes not 
     accurate. Previous studies have shown that physicians 
     completing death records following a maternal death fail to 
     report that the woman was pregnant or had a recent pregnancy 
     in 50% or more of these cases,2-4 resulting in the 
     misclassification of the underlying cause of death. Since 
     these deaths cannot be identified as maternal deaths through 
     routine surveillance methods, they are not included in the 
     calculation of maternal mortality rates.
       An additional limitation of using death records alone for 
     comprehensive identification of all deaths associated with 
     pregnancy is that the WHO definition of a maternal death 
     limits the temporal and causal scope of pregnancy mortality. 
     As defined by WHO, a maternal death does not include deaths 
     occurring more than 42 days following termination of 
     pregnancy or deaths resulting from causes other than direct 
     complications of pregnancy, labor, and the puerperium.
       To address these issues, the term ``pregnancy-associated 
     death'' was introduced by the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, in collaboration with the Maternal Mortality 
     Special Interest Group of the American College of 
     Obstetricians and Gynecologists, to define a death from any 
     cause during pregnancy or within 1 calendar year of delivery 
     or pregnancy termination, regardless of the duration or 
     anatomical site of the pregnancy.\5\ Pregnancy-associated 
     deaths include not only deaths commonly associated with 
     pregnancy such as hemorrhage, pregnancy-induced hypertension, 
     and embolism--which are captured in the WHO definition--but 
     also deaths not traditionally considered to be related to 
     pregnancy such as accidents, homicide, and suicide. The term 
     also includes deaths occurring 43 to 365 days following 
     termination of pregnancy. Since

[[Page H1624]]

     cause-of-death information on death certificates cannot 
     identify deaths from nonmaternal causes or deaths occurring 
     43 or more days following termination of pregnancy as 
     associated with pregnancy, additional sources of data must be 
     used for complete ascertainment of all pregnancy-associated 
     deaths.
       Previous studies on pregnancy-associated deaths have relied 
     largely on linkage or records 2.6-8 or the use of 
     a check box on the death certificate \9\ to identify 
     pregnancy-associated deaths. Only 1 study (Allen et al \10\) 
     in New York City used death certificates, linkage of records, 
     and review of autopsy reports to identify pregnancy-
     associated deaths. However, this study did not include all 
     pregnancy-associated deaths since only records for deaths 
     occurring within 6 months of termination of pregnancy were 
     collected, and medical examiner records for only certain 
     causes of death were reviewed.
       This article, based on Maryland resident data for the years 
     1993-1998, presents more comprehensive data on pregnancy-
     associated deaths since it includes all deaths occurring 
     during pregnancy or within a year of termination of 
     pregnancy. In addition, medical examiner records for all 
     women of reproductive age who died during the study period, 
     regardless of cause of death, were reviewed to identify 
     pregnancy-associated deaths.


                                methods

       Data for this analysis were collected from the following 3 
     sources: (1) review of death certificates to identify those 
     records on which a complication of pregnancy, childbirth, or 
     the puerperium (ICD-9 codes 630-676) was listed as an 
     underlying or contributing cause of death; (2) linkage of 
     death certificates of reproductive-age women with 
     corresponding live birth and fetal death records to identify 
     a pregnancy within the year preceding death; and (3) review 
     of medical examiner records for evidence of pregnancy.
       Vital records data were obtained from the Vital Statistics 
     Administration of the Maryland Department of Health and 
     Mental Hygiene. Identification of pregnancy-associated deaths 
     through linkage of vital records was accomplished by matching 
     death certificates for all women of reproductive age against 
     live birth and fetal death records to identify pregnancies 
     occurring in the year preceding death. Successful linkage of 
     records was achieved by matching either mother's Social 
     Security number or mother's name and date of birth on the 
     death record with corresponding information on live birth and 
     fetal death records. All linked records were manually 
     reviewed to ensure accurate matching of records.
       Medical examiner records, which include autopsy reports and 
     police records, were reviewed for all 4195 women aged 10 to 
     50 years whose deaths were investigated by the medical 
     examiner during the study period. Maryland law mandates that 
     the medical examiner investigate all deaths that occur by 
     violence, suicide, casualty, unexpectedly, or in any 
     suspicious or unusual manner. Death certificates were 
     obtained for 116 women for whom medical examiner records 
     indicated evidence of pregnancy.
       With the exception of 1 death to a 14-year-old adolescent, 
     all deaths identified through medical examiner records 
     occurred among women who were within the traditional 
     reproductive age group of 15 to 44 years. All deaths 
     identified through death certificates and record linkage were 
     among women between the ages of 15 and 44 years.
       All death records that did not identify a maternal cause as 
     the underlying cause of death (n = 184) were reviewed by 
     trained nosologists to determine the underlying cause of 
     death that would have been assigned if a history of pregnancy 
     had been reported on the death certificate. Nosologists were 
     provided with information on pregnancy outcome and, if 
     available, the date of delivery, date of pregnancy 
     termination, or gestational age. Revised underlying cause-of-
     death information was used to categorize data by cause of 
     death.


                                RESULTS

       A total of 247 pregnancy-associated deaths occurring 
     between 1993 and 1998 were identified from the 3 data 
     sources. Sixty-seven pregnancy-associated deaths (27.1%) were 
     identified through cause-of-death information obtained from 
     death certificates. Sixty-two of these records listed 
     pregnancy complications as the underlying cause of death; the 
     remaining 5 certificates listed pregnancy complications as a 
     contributing, but not underlying, cause of death. Linkage of 
     records identified 174 (70.4%) of all pregnancy-associated 
     deaths and review of medical examiner records resulted in the 
     identification of 116 (47.0%) deaths (Table 1).

  TABLE 1.--NUMBER OF PREGNANCY-ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY PREGNANCY OUTCOME AND SOURCES OF DATA, MARYLAND, 1993-1998
                                                       \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Sources of data
                                                                             -----------------------------------
                        Pregnancy outcome                            Total                              Medical
                                                                     deaths       Death       Record    examiner
                                                                              certificates   linkage    records
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All outcomes.....................................................        247           67         174        116
  Live births....................................................        182           46         172         60
  Fetal death....................................................          5            3           2          4
  Therapeutic abortion...........................................          1            0           0          1
  Undelivered....................................................         53           12           0         50
    Ectopic pregnancy............................................          7            7           0          5
    Molar pregnancy..............................................          1            1           0          1
    All other undelivered........................................         45            4           0         44
  Unknown........................................................          6            6           0          1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Deaths from any cause during pregnancy or within 1 calendar year of delivery or termination of pregnancy,
  regardless of the duration or anatomical site of the pregnancy. A single death may have been ascertained from
  more than 1 source, therefore columns do not sum to the total number of deaths.

       Sixty-five percent (n = 160) of pregnancy-associated deaths 
     were identified through a single surveillance method. One 
     hundred two (41.3%) were identified only through linkage of 
     records, 45 (18.2%) only through review of medical examiner 
     records, and 13 (5.3%) only through cause-of-death 
     information provided on death certificates. Thirty-five 
     percent of pregnancy-associated deaths were identified 
     through more than 1 data source (n = 87).
       One hundred eighty-two (73.7%) of the 247 pregnancy-
     associated deaths identified in this study followed a live 
     birth, 5 (2.0%) followed a fetal death, 1 followed a 
     therapeutic abortion, and 53 (21.4%) occurred among women who 
     were pregnant at the time of death. Of the 53 deaths that 
     occurred among pregnant women, 7 were the result of ruptured 
     ectopic pregnancies and 1 resulted from a molar pregnancy 
     (Table 1). Eighty-four (34.0%) deaths occurred within 42 days 
     of delivery or termination of pregnancy, and 103 (41.7%) 
     deaths occurred 43 to 365 days following delivery or 
     termination of pregnancy. The time of death was unknown for 7 
     women (Table 2).

                                                       TABLE 2--NUMBER OF PREGNANCY-ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY CAUSE OF DEATH, SOURCE OF DATA, AND TIME OF DEATH, MARYLAND 1993-1998 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            All sources                                 Death certificates                                Record linkage                             Medical examiner records
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    After delivery of                               After delivery or                               After delivery or                               After delivery or
             Cause of death                                     termination of pregnancy                        termination of pregnancy                        termination of pregnancy                        termination of pregnancy
                                          Total \2\    During  -------------------------- Total \2\    During  -------------------------- Total \2\    During  -------------------------- Total \2\    During  -------------------------
                                                     pregnancy       42 d                            pregnancy       42 d                            Pregnancy       42 d                            Pregnancy       42 d
                                                                                43-365 d                                        43-365 d                                        43-365 d                                        43-365 d
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All causes..............................        247         53           84          103         67         12           45            3        174          0           71          103        116         50           48           16
Homicide................................         50         23            3           24          0          0            0            0         27          0            3           24         25         23            1            1
Cardiovascular..........................         48          5           21           18         13          2            6            1         36          0           18           18         30          5           15            8
Embolism................................         21          5           14            2         11          1            9            1         14          0           12            2         14          5            8            1
accidents \3\...........................         18          6            2           10          0          0            0            0         11          0            1           10          9          6            2            1
Hemorrhage..............................         17          7            9            0         16          7            8            0          5          0            5            0         10          5            5            0
Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.....         16          0           15            1         14          0           13            1         16          0           15            1         10          0            9            1
Infection...............................         16          0            7            8          4          0            3            0         15          0            7            8          3          0            2            1
Neoplasms...............................         15          0            0           15          0          0            0            0         15          0            0           15          0          0            0            0
Substance abuse.........................         13          1            3            9          1          0            1            0         11          0            2            9          4          1            2            1
Suicide.................................          7          2            0            5          0          0            0            0          5          0            0            5          3          2            0            1
All other causes........................         26          4           10           11          8          2            5            0         19          0            8           11          8          3            4            1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Deaths from any cause during pregnancy within 1 calendar year of delivery or termination pregnancy, regardless of the duration or anatomical site of the pregnancy. A single death may have been ascertained from more than 1
  source, therefore columns do not sum to the total number of deaths ascertained from all sources.
\2\ Totals include 7 deaths for which the time of death was unknown.
\3\ Includes deaths from motor vehicle collisions, falls, drowning, and other unintentional injuries.

       The leading cause of pregnancy-associated death was 
     homicide (n=50). All homicides were identified through record 
     linkage or review of medical examiner records rather than 
     from death certificates, as would be expected since homicide 
     is not a maternal cause of death. Deaths from cardiovascular 
     disorders, the second leading cause of death (n=48), were 
     identified through all 3 data sources, although no single 
     source was able to identify all deaths. Of the 26 deaths from 
     cardiovascular disorders that occurred during pregnancy or 
     within 42 days of delivery and should therefore have been 
     classified as maternal deaths, only 8 were identified through 
     death certificates. A substantial proportion of deaths from 
     other maternal causes, including embolism and infection, 
     could not be identified from death certificates since the 
     physicians filling out the certificates failed to report that 
     the women were pregnant or had recent pregnancies (Table 2).
       All maternal deaths, by definition, occurred during 
     pregnancy or within 42 days of delivery or termination of 
     pregnancy. This included most deaths from embolism, 
     hemorrhage, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy as well 
     as a substantial proportion of

[[Page H1625]]

     deaths resulting from cardiovascular disorders and infection. 
     Homicide was responsible for the majority of deaths during 
     pregnancy (23 [43.4%]) and during the 43- to 365-day period 
     following delivery or termination of pregnancy (24 [23.3%]), 
     but accounted for only a small proportion of deaths occurring 
     within 42 days of pregnancy (3 [3.6%]), when obstetric causes 
     were responsible for most pregnancy-associated deaths. 
     Cardiovascular disorders (n=21) were the leading cause of 
     death in the 42-day period following delivery or termination 
     of pregnancy and the second leading cause of death (n=18), 
     following homicide, in the late postpartum period (Table 2).
       Homicide, the leading cause of pregnancy-associated death, 
     was responsible for 20.2% of all pregnancy-associated deaths. 
     By comparison, homicide was the fifth leading cause of death 
     among Maryland women aged 14 to 44 years who had not had a 
     pregnancy in the year preceding death and was responsible for 
     457 (6.4%) of total deaths among this group (z=7.737, 
     P<.001). The pregnant group was younger and included a higher 
     percentage of African American women than the nonpregnant 
     group, factors that are associated with higher rates of 
     homicide independent of pregnancy. However, these factors did 
     not explain the higher proportion of homicide deaths in the 
     pregnant group. While adjustment for race and maternal age 
     increased the proportion of deaths due to homicide to 11.2% 
     among women who had not been pregnant in the year preceding 
     death, the adjusted figure was still significantly lower than 
     the figure of 20.2% among women who had been pregnant 
     (z=4.349, P<.001).


                                comment

       The use of multiple data sources substantially enhances 
     pregnancy mortality surveillance because no single source can 
     identify all pregnancy-associated deaths. Death certificates 
     are designed to collect only a small subset of pregnancy-
     associated deaths. Even these deaths are frequently not 
     included in maternal mortality statistics because physicians 
     completing death certificates fail to provide the information 
     needed to correctly classify a maternal death. Analysis of 
     data in this report indicated that 30 (34.5%) of the 87 
     deaths meeting the WHO definition of a maternal death could 
     not be identified through cause-of-death information reported 
     by physicians on the death certificate. Data linkage is an 
     additional tool for identifying pregnancy-associated deaths, 
     but it is limited to those deaths with a reported outcome, 
     such as a live birth or fetal death. Medical examiner records 
     are the most useful source for identifying pregnancy-
     associated deaths among women who have not delivered at the 
     time of death.
       Data linkage and review of medical examiner records 
     contribute substantially to identification of pregnancy-
     associated mortality. In Maryland, this led to the disturbing 
     finding that a pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more 
     likely to be a victim of homicide than to die of any other 
     cause. Other reports have identified homicide as a cause of 
     pregnancy-associated death. However, none of these studies 
     reported on pregnancy-associated deaths from other causes as 
     well, and therefore could not provide a ranking of deaths by 
     cause.
       Although we have shown that homicide is responsible for a 
     greater proportion of deaths among pregnant and postpartum 
     women than among women who have not been pregnant in the year 
     preceding death, our findings do not address the issue of 
     whether the homicide rate is higher among pregnant and 
     postpartum women in general than among women who have not had 
     recent pregnancies. This highlights a well-recognized 
     limitation of proportional mortality statistics, ie, that 
     these statistics include only individuals who die, not those 
     at risk of dying. Therefore, no direct inferences regarding 
     increased homicide rates for all pregnant women can be made 
     using only proportional mortality statistics.
       The question of whether the homicide rate is higher among 
     pregnant and postpartum women than among women who have not 
     had recent pregnancies could be answered by comparing 
     mortality rates in the 2 groups. However, a methodology for 
     computing pregnancy-associated mortality rates and mortality 
     rates for nonpregnant women has not yet been established 
     because of complexities in determining the number of pregnant 
     women in a population. Since a woman may experience more than 
     1 pregnancy and more than 1 pregnancy outcome (live birth, 
     fetal loss, or induced abortion) in a given time period, the 
     number of pregnant women cannot be computed by summing the 
     number of pregnancy outcomes. Even if the number of pregnant 
     women could be estimated, an additional issue that would have 
     to be addressed is how to adjust mortality rates to account 
     for differences in the time period of risk of death in the 2 
     populations. It is important that increased efforts be placed 
     on development of appropriate methodologies for calculating 
     pregnancy-associated mortality rates so that the questions 
     raised by this article may be addressed.
       The findings of this article also suggest that maternal 
     mortality review committees should investigate homicides 
     occurring during pregnancy and in the postpartum period to 
     determine potential relationships between these events. For 
     example, a homicide resulting from domestic violence may be 
     related to the stress of pregnancy. Similarly, a suicide soon 
     after delivery may result from postpartum depression. By 
     broadening pregnancy mortality to include all possible 
     causes, factors previously neglected may assume increased 
     importance in prenatal and postpartum care.
       Despite the use of enhanced surveillance techniques, it is 
     likely that some pregnancy-associated deaths remain 
     undetected, particularly those occurring in women who were 
     pregnant at the time of death. Since autopsies are performed 
     on all homicide victims, it is more likely that pregnancy 
     would be detected among these women that among women dying 
     from other causes, who are less likely to be autopsied. Since 
     Maryland law mandates that the medical examiner investigate 
     deaths among individuals who were in apparent good health at 
     the time of death, which describes most pregnant women, the 
     majority of deaths among these women should have been 
     investigated by the medical examiner. Autopsies were in fact 
     performed more frequently among women with recognized 
     pregnancy-associated deaths who died from causes other than 
     homicide (123 [62.4%]) than among women of reproductive age 
     without recognized pregnancies (6696 [30.6%]). However, it is 
     still possible that some pregnancies remain undetected, which 
     could have an impact on the total number of pregnancy-
     associated deaths as well as on the distribution of deaths by 
     pregnancy outcome, time of death, or cause of death.
       Efforts are being made in Maryland to improve the 
     identification of pregnancy-associated deaths. Recent 
     legislation mandates that health care professionals and 
     facilities report all pregnancy-associated deaths to the 
     Maryland Maternal Mortality Review Program. In addition, the 
     Maryland death certificate was revised in 2001 to include 
     questions about current or recent pregnancies. Currently, 
     only 17 states and New York City have a pregnancy check box 
     or ask about pregnancy status on their death certificates. 
     Use of pregnancy question by all states on the revised US 
     Standard Certificate of Death has been recommended to the 
     National Center for Health Statistics by the Panel to 
     Evacuate the US Standard Certificates and Reports. Such a 
     change, which would be consistent with a recommendation of 
     the World Health Assembly in the International Classification 
     of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10),\13\ would substantially 
     improve ascertainment of pregnancy on death certificates. If 
     approved by the US Department of Health and Human Services, 
     states could adopt the pregnancy question in the 2003 
     revision of their death certificates. This change should help 
     to identify deaths that remain difficult to detect, such as 
     deaths that cannot be identified through linkage of records 
     and deaths among women who had not delivered that are not 
     reported to the medical examiner. However, it would be a 
     service, as well as good medical practice, if physicians made 
     a greater effort to report pregnancy as a factor contributing 
     to death when appropriate.
       Comprehensive identification of pregnancy-associated deaths 
     can only be accomplished by collecting information from 
     multiple data sources and including all deaths occurring up 
     to 1 year after pregnancy termination. Through such enhanced 
     surveillance, the Maryland Department of Health and Mental 
     Hygiene has shown that the number of pregnancy-associated 
     deaths is substantially higher and causes of death 
     substantially broader than previously believed. Enhanced 
     surveillance of pregnancy-associated deaths is necessary to 
     accurately document the magnitude of pregnancy mortality, 
     identify groups at increased risk of death, review factors 
     leading to the death, and plan prevention strategies. It is 
     therefore a critical step in the reduction of pregnancy-
     associated mortality.


                               references

       1. World Health Organization. ``Manual of the International 
     Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes 
     of Death.'' Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 
     1977.
       2. Dye TD, Gordon H, Held B, Tolliver NJ, Holmes, AP. 
     Retrospective maternal mortality case ascertainment in West 
     Virginia, 1985 to 1989. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 167: 72-
     76.
       3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pregnancy-
     related mortality--Georgia, 1990-1992. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly 
     Rep. 1995; 44:93-96.
       4. Atrash HK, Alexander S. Berg CJ. Maternal mortality in 
     developed countries; not just a concern of the past. Obstet 
     Gynecol. 1995; 86:700-705.
       5. Atrash HK, Rowley D, Hogue CJR. Maternal and perinatal 
     mortality. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1992; 4:61-71.
       6. Starzyk P, Frost F, Kobayashi JM. Misclassification of 
     maternal deaths--Washington State. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 
     1986; 35:621-623.
       7. Jocums SB, Berg CJ, Entman SS, Mitchell EF. Post-
     delivery mortality in Tennessee, 1989-91, Obstet Gynecol. 
     1998; 91:767-770.
       8. Floyd V, Hadley C, Lavoie M, Toomey K. Pregnancy-related 
     mortality--Georgia, 1990-92. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1995; 
     44:93-97.
       9. Comas A, Navarro A. Carrera A, et al. Maternal mortality 
     surveillance--Puerto Rico, 1989. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 
     1991; 40:521-523.
       10. Allen MH, Chavkin W, Jarinoff J. Ascertainment of 
     maternal deaths in New York City. Am J Public Health. 1991; 
     81:382-384.
       11. Dietz PM, Rochat RW, Thompson BL, Berg CJ, Griffin GW. 
     Differences in the risk of homicide and other fatal injuries 
     between postpartum women and other women of childbearing age: 
     implications for prevention, Am J Public Health. 1998; 
     88:641-643.

[[Page H1626]]

       12. Parsons LH, Harper MA. Violent maternal deaths in North 
     Carolina. Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 94:990-993.
       13. World Health Organization. ``International 
     Classification of Diseases,'' 10th Revision (ICD-10). Geneva 
     Switzerland World Health Organization; 1992.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, first let me disabuse the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of his notion that those of us who voted 
for the bill to bar capital punishment for pregnant women were 
recognizing the fetus or the unborn child as a person.
  I vote against anything to limit capital punishment. I would say to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), I am opposed to 
capital punishment. I think it is barbaric whether it is against 
pregnant women or barbaric against nonpregnant women.
  Mr. Speaker, violence against pregnant women is first and foremost a 
criminal act of violence against the women that deserves strong 
preventive measures and stiff punishment.
  The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) referred to the article in 
the Journal of the American Medical Association that said homicides 
during pregnancy and the year after are the largest cause of death 
among women, and they are.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace that while these preventable crimes 
continue to occur, it is a disgrace that Congress fails with this 
largely symbolic legislation rather than taking affirmative steps to 
deal with the problem. Why, for example, did the Republican majority 
fall $209 million short of President Clinton's request last year for 
full funding of the Violence Against Women Act? Why did the Republicans 
on the Committee on the Judiciary vote against an amendment for full 
funding of the Violence Against Women Act? If we are concerned about 
violence against women and pregnant women and murders of pregnant 
women, as the Journal of the American Medical Association indicates, 
that is how to prevent it, by early intervention, by preventing the 
crime, not by fighting about the legal definition of the fetus from a 
legal point of view.
  Are the Members who vote for this legislation today going to join the 
rest of us in seeking full funding for the Violence Against Women Act 
in the next fiscal year? Will they fight efforts to zero out for the 
second year in a row programs authorized by the Committee on the 
Judiciary last year to prevent such violence?
  No one who listened to the testimony at our subcommittee could have 
been left unmoved by the terrible story of the young woman who was 
murdered by her intimate partner in the eighth month of pregnancy. I 
think we owe it to her and to the many women like her to ensure that 
early intervention is available that would prevent us and that States 
and localities receive the full resources of the Violence Against Women 
Act to prevent murders like this by intervening before the violence 
escalates to that level.
  We should also enact strong penalties, ones which are enforceable, 
which are not constitutionally suspect, which will not lead to lengthy 
litigation for these violent crimes.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill opens the door to prosecuting women 
or restraining them physically for the sake of a fetus. Some courts 
have already experimented with this approach. Just a few weeks ago, the 
Supreme Court struck down a practice in the home State of the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) where a hospital would give the 
results of a pregnant woman's blood test to local law enforcement for 
the purpose of initiating legal action against them if they had used 
crack. Once we recognize the two-cell zygote or even a blastocyst just 
implanted in the womb as having the same legal status as a pregnant 
woman, it would logically follow that the liberty interest of the 
mother could be restricted to protect the fetus.
  Do not believe the rhetoric that this is not an abortion bill. Women 
are already being prosecuted and imprisoned by courts, including courts 
in the sponsor's own State, in order to protect the fetuses.
  The whole purpose of Roe v. Wade was to protect the liberty interests 
of these women. The women who sit in prison today can say what the 
legal consequences of making fetuses crime victims recognized in law 
really are. They can say what the real agenda is. The real agenda is to 
subject women's liberty to the interests of the fetus and to make the 
fetus accepted as a person, and that is why this is an abortion bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the author of the bill.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, this has been a spirited debate, a lively 
debate. I think it is good for the country to have this debate. I hate 
to interrupt good stories with facts and law, but I guess I will.
  I am going to go red herring fishing. That is a hard thing to catch; 
but when one catches it, they have something.
  A couple of red herrings that I think have been thrown out here about 
the bill: this is an abortion bill. If this is an abortion bill, it is 
one of the worst-drafted abortion bills one could think of. It does a 
lousy job, and let me read from the bill: ``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 
person authorized by law to act on her behalf has been obtained or for 
which such consent is implied by law.''

                              {time}  1200

  If we are trying to outlaw abortions, we did a pretty lousy job in 
that paragraph. ``Nothing in this section shall allow the prosecution 
of any person for medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn 
child; or of any woman with respect to her unborn child.''
  Why is that language in there? The purpose of this bill is very 
simple: Once the woman chooses to have the child and someone takes that 
child away from her through an assault or an act of violence, we want 
to put them in jail for the damage done to the unborn child.
  This is not a two-victim bill. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) is right. The reason it is not a two-victim bill is because 
there are laws all over the country preventing assaults against women 
who are pregnant in their own States. There are 24 States that make it 
a separate offense to take her unborn child's life. At the Federal 
level, there is no such law. There soon will be.
  That will coexist with Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade has never stood for 
the proposition that the State or Federal Government cannot protect the 
unborn against violent criminal activity. It stood for the proposition 
that the Federal-State government cannot interfere with a woman's right 
to choose an abortion first trimester and under certain circumstances 
thereafter.
  Why did 254 Members of this body last year vote for this bill? All of 
them are not pro-life. I happen to be pro-life. Why would a pro-choice 
person vote for my bill? I think they have sat down and read it, and 
they understand a couple of things about the bill, and I want to 
applaud them for doing it. We may disagree on a woman's right to 
choose, and America splits evenly on that. If you disagree with me on 
that issue, I will not question your politics, your religion, or your 
patriotism. I have my view; you have yours.
  But here is what I am so excited about from last year's vote, and 
hopeful for this year that Congress has come together on this central 
theme, that once a woman chooses to have the baby, we are going to 
protect the baby and the mother. This body spends millions of dollars a 
year helping women through pregnancy. Low-income women get help from 
the Federal Government to make sure the child is fully developed. We 
help at-risk pregnancies. That is a good thing. That is not a bad 
thing. That is not about the abortion debate.
  I think most Americans, even though we divide on the issue of 
abortion, would come together on the issue that if a woman has the 
child and some criminal takes that right away from the woman, we ought 
to put them in jail to the fullest extent of the law. That is what we 
do, and that is what 24 other States do.
  Another red herring about the definition: The definition in this bill 
is exactly what exists in 11 other States and it withstood 
constitutional challenge and it is exactly what the House voted on on 
July 25, 2000.

[[Page H1627]]

  Let me tell you how important that is. 417-0, the House came together 
and said we are not going to execute a pregnant woman. Why? Does that 
infringe on Roe v. Wade? No. I think there would be riots in the 
streets in this country, from pro-choice and pro-life people, if a 
pregnant woman was executed, because nothing good is served. No public 
policy is advanced by taking that unborn child's life. We have not 
helped anybody. We have done a bad thing, not a good thing.
  So let us come together and do a good thing. Let us put criminals in 
jail who assault pregnant women to the fullest extent of the law, no 
more, no less, and my bill does that.
  The definition will withstand constitutional scrutiny. It is a matter 
of proof. The two-cell zygote defense is a red herring. It is the same 
definition the body voted on before. It is the burden of proof problem 
for every prosecutor. If you said you could be prosecuted after 6 weeks 
of pregnancy, you would have to prove that the pregnancy existed longer 
than 6 weeks. Prosecutors can do those things, and defense attorneys 
will have their objections.
  This bill is well drafted. It makes a lot of common sense. It is not 
about the abortion debate; it is about America coming together 
protecting unborn life when we find consensus.
  We should be looking for consensus, from adoption to this bill, to 
partial-birth abortion, to bring life into the world where we can. And 
when we have these debates about a woman's right to choose, I honor 
your right to disagree with me, but that is not today. Today is about 
bringing the country together, this body together, to put people in 
jail that deserve to go.
  As to the question does this really happen, let me tell you, it 
happens more than I thought it did. When I was a prosecutor in the Air 
Force, we had a handful of cases of pregnant women being assaulted and 
losing their child. There was no statute to prosecute them for 
that. That was frustrating. If this bill passes, they will have those 
tools.

  Timothy McVeigh will be in the news again soon, and I respect the 
view of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) on the death penalty. 
I disagree with that. But we will be reminded about Oklahoma City soon.
  You may not know this, but three women in that building were 
pregnant. One of them was the wife of Michael Lenz. They had a sonogram 
of the baby, she is showing it to office workers. The next day she goes 
to work, the building is blown up, she is killed, and the baby is lost. 
Mr. Lenz came to Congress 2 years ago and told us, ``That day will mark 
me for life, but that day I lost two things, not one. I lost the mother 
of my child, my wife, but I also lost Michael Lenz, III.''
  Without this bill, there is no recognition of him as being a victim 
of Oklahoma City. He should have been a victim, because he was wanted 
by the family and his life was taken away through an act of violence. 
That person should go to jail for that act of violence.
  I will tell you later why the substitute does not get us to where we 
need to go. It is not the way the law is trending here.
  But read the bill, think about what we are trying to do. And to those 
pro-choice Members of Congress who voted for this bill last year, thank 
you. Thank you for coming together and having a rational debate on how 
to protect the unborn without getting into the abortion debate. I want 
to thank you very much.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to let the author of this bill, the 
gentleman from South Carolina who just spoke, know that what he claimed 
as a red herring really is not a red herring at all. The threat to Roe 
v. Wade made in this bill cannot be made more clear because this bill 
contradicts the definition of who a person is by writing it the way 
they did.
  The Court, in Roe, recognized the woman's right to have an abortion 
as a right protected by the 14th amendment. In considering the issue of 
whether a fetus is a person, the Court noted, ``Except in narrowly 
defined situations, the unborn have never been recognized in law as 
persons in the whole sense,'' and concluded ``person'' as used in the 
14th amendment does not include the unborn. The Court declined to grant 
fetuses the status of person because it recognized the difficulty in 
finding an end point to rights that the fetus might claim.
  The current bill raises those same issues. In the 28 years since Roe, 
the Supreme Court has never afforded legal personhood to a fetus; and 
that, I would say to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), is 
what the problem is about the bill; that, I would say to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), is what the problem is about the bill; that, I 
would say to my dear chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), is what the problem is about the bill.
  The gentlemen are contradicting the definition of ``person'' by 
writing it in the way that they have. That is why the gentlewoman from 
California had to write a substitute, because we had to get that 
corrected. As a matter of fact, we go further to prosecute an assailant 
of a pregnant woman than you do.
  So, let us not talk about that being a red herring. That is what the 
debate is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank particularly the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) for doing an excellent job 
on shepherding this legislation through, as well as the chairman of our 
committee.
  Yesterday I had a conversation in my office with a lady who is a 
student at Georgetown University; and I thought, well, I will just ask 
her her view of this legislation. I said, have you looked at this, the 
Unborn Victims of Violence Act? She said she had.
  I said what is your view on it? She said she supported it. I said are 
you pro-choice or pro-life? She said I am pro-choice.
  So here is a pro-choice lady, a student at Georgetown University, 
very thoughtful, who recognized the importance of protecting women by 
extending the protection in this instance to the loss of the unborn 
child.
  I asked her why, and she explained it particularly in those words, 
that there is nothing more important whenever you have someone commit a 
violent act against a pregnant woman than that they be held accountable 
for all of the loss that occurs.
  I think this is a thoughtful person. I think she describes where we 
should be able to come together, whether it is pro-choice or pro-life, 
that this is something we should be able to unite together on.
  I believe it simply follows the leads of a variety of States that 
have already given legal protection in the circumstance where a 
pregnant woman is attacked and there is the loss of the unborn child. 
Arkansas is a great example of that.
  Many people have referred to the case of Shawana Pace. It was my 
nephew, Representative Jim Hendren, who sponsored the fetal protection 
law in the Arkansas General Assembly, and I am thankful that was 
passed, because that law allowed the perpetrators of the violence 
against Shawana Pace to be prosecuted.
  It was simply an assault upon her, but it was the intentional death 
of that unborn child, literally days before that child was born, with 
the words saying, ``Today, your child will die.'' It was an intentional 
act. Other than under the fetal protection law, they could not have 
been prosecuted. So I think it does credit to the women.
  The argument is made here that well, we are not fully supporting the 
Violence Against Women Act. I just want to tell my colleagues I have 
written to the appropriators and asked them to fully fund the Violence 
Against Women Act. I joined in the news conference for that purpose. I 
think it is very important, and you are right to raise the level of 
attention to the importance of the Violence Against Women Act. We need 
to join together. But that should not be a reason not to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman on his

[[Page H1628]]

latest observation. Now, with the woman that visited his office, and 
his asking her unsolicited opinion, did the gentleman ask her what she 
thought about the Lofgren substitute?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me continue on 
with the Lofgren substitute.
  Mr. CONYERS. Did the gentleman ask her?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. No, I did not ask her, sir. I did not.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
oppose this bill. I ask my colleagues to look at this legislation for 
what it is, not for what it claims to be.
  On its face this bill could seem as an attempt to provide protections 
for pregnant women from assault and to provide prosecutors with another 
tool to punish those who cause the non-consensual termination of a 
pregnancy. However, on closer examination, this bill sets the stage for 
a legislative assault on Roe v. Wade by treating a fetus from the 
moment of conception as an individual with extensive legal rights, 
distinct from the mother.
  Every time a criminal causes injury or death through violence, it is 
a tragedy. But we must all 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.
  I have heard some Members debating talk about stories of people they 
have met. I remember in the Wisconsin legislature hearing the personal 
story of a woman who was beaten 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 pregnancy. If we had tough 
enough laws against violence against women, it would not have created 
that result.
  I am a cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act which expands 
protections for women against 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 legal framework 
to protect fetal rights. By switching the focus of the crime, we are 
diverting attention from the victimized women.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the underlying bill and support 
the Lofgren amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, one thing that makes America great 
is its longstanding tradition to defend those incapable of defending 
themselves. Our Founding Fathers acknowledged the proverb to ``Speak up 
for those who cannot speak for themselves.''
  It is our duty to stand up for the weaker members of society, and I 
believe the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does just that. Currently, 
when someone commits a crime in which a woman and her preborn baby are 
harmed, the accused can only be prosecuted for harm to the mother. This 
sends the wrong message. It says there is only one victim in this 
situation, and nothing could be further from the truth. There are two 
victims harmed in this crime, the mother and her preborn baby.

                              {time}  1215

  My colleagues who oppose this bill want to offer a substitute that 
would recognize the mother as a victim, but not the baby. I would like 
to remind them again that half the States do not agree; fully 24 have 
homicide laws that recognize unborn victims.
  Furthermore, and I know we discussed this today, I would like to 
bring to my colleagues' attention a similar act that took place in the 
House last year. It was in July of last year that we voted 417-0 to 
deny Federal funds to execute pregnant women. This bill specifically 
protects a ``member of the species homo sapien at any stage of the 
development who is carried in the womb.''
  If we are willing to protect preborn babies from Federal execution, 
why would we let a criminal harm an innocent life without facing 
specific penalty?
  Let me say it again: If we are willing to protect preborn babies from 
Federal execution, why would we let a criminal harm an innocent life 
without facing specific penalties?
  Those who say they believe in choice should be the strongest 
advocates of this bill. After all, any criminal who harms a preborn 
baby has interfered with a woman's choice to carry that baby to term.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to defend 
those who cannot defend themselves.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, let us be candid. This debate is all about 
preserving the woman's right of choice. It is about preserving a 
woman's right of choice at the beginning of this debate, it is about 
preserving a woman's right of choice at the middle of this debate, and 
at the conclusion of this debate, it will be all about preserving a 
woman's right of choice.
  The women of America who are afraid of losing that right sincerely, 
and rightfully so, understand this debate. They understand that if the 
desire of this Chamber is to punish, to give jail time, to give long 
periods of incarceration to any heinous criminal who attacks a pregnant 
woman, we would pass a bill that would do that with 435 votes, and the 
bill that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has brought 
before us does exactly that.
  Now, why cannot intelligent members of this House, 435, come together 
on a bill that does exactly that? Why can we not design a bill like 
that?
  The reason is that certain folks who want to take away a woman's 
right of choice. And I understand that their beliefs are sincere, and I 
respect their beliefs, but their beliefs do not respect the U.S. 
Constitution. Those folks have proposed language that is trying to set 
the stage to end the right of choice in this country. It is a 
calculated, concerted, and long-term plan to do that.
  Let me tell my colleagues why that is important. Every morning I walk 
by the U.S. Supreme Court building. I live right across the street from 
the Supreme Court building, and every morning I look at that building, 
and when one looks at that building, one understands that if one vote 
changes, as the current President of the United States will attempt to 
do, there will be no longer constitutional protection in this country 
for a woman's right of choice, and that issue will be here in this 
Chamber.
  Those who resist the approach of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren), those who resist the thing that would get 435 votes, those 
who resist the approach that brings union, not disunion, to this 
Chamber, seek to set the stage for a legislative taking away of a 
woman's right of choice as soon as the Supreme Court's protection for a 
woman's right of choice is taken away from American women. That is what 
this debate is about.
  Support the Lofgren amendment. That is the goal we want to pursue, 
with 435 votes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington is dead wrong. This is 
similar to bills that have been enacted into law in many States, and 
anybody who is charged for killing an unborn child would have used that 
constitutional argument as a defense. In no State has a Federal court 
or a State court struck down a similar law.
  The woman who is assaulted and whose unborn child has been killed or 
maimed has already made her choice, and that is to bear that child. Why 
do we not respect the choice that that woman has made?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. DeMint).
  (Mr. DeMINT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 503, the 
Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and I commend the gentleman from South 
Carolina for introducing this legislation.
  Let us consider for a moment the human side of this legislation. A 
friend of mine and his wife tried for years to

[[Page H1629]]

conceive a child. They had almost given up when unexpectedly they 
conceived twins, a double blessing. If someone had assaulted or 
otherwise committed a crime of violence against her that killed these 
children, one cannot tell me that punishment should only occur for the 
crime against the woman when the unborn children were the innocent 
victims of the violence. If these two lovely children that the couple 
had longed for had tragically died in the commission of a crime of 
violence, the criminal must be held accountable.
  This legislation takes the important step of recognizing that 
violence against an unborn child against the will of the mother, taking 
away the mother's right to choose, can be prosecuted in a court of law. 
This is not a new concept. In fact, over half of the States in this 
Nation have State laws which protect unborn victims of violence in some 
form. I have with me today a list of these State homicide laws that 
recognize unborn victims, which will be inserted into the Record.
  This legislation would not supersede those State laws, nor would it 
impose a new law for crimes which are under State jurisdiction. Rather, 
this bill recognizes an unborn child as a victim in the eyes of Federal 
criminal law.
  Currently, if a criminal injures or kills an unborn child during the 
course of a violent Federal crime, he has not committed an additional 
offense, other than the violent crime. But that is not fair. If an 
unborn child dies because of a violent act perpetrated against his or 
her mother, then the criminal must be held accountable.
  We have heard about an amendment to this legislation which would take 
away the recognition that a violent crime has occurred against an 
unborn child. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
vote against this weakening amendment.
  The title of this bill describes exactly what this bill is about: 
unborn victims of violence. This bill works to correct an unjust 
situation in which the life of an unborn child is lost, and there are 
no legal repercussions. I challenge my colleagues again on both sides 
of the aisle and on both sides of the abortion issue to hold criminals 
accountable for their violent crimes.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to stand with me today and 
vote in favor of H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

           State Homicide Laws that Recognize Unborn Victims


full-coverage unborn victim states (11) (States with homicide laws that 
recognize unborn children as victims throughout the period of pre-natal 
                              development)

       Arizona--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage of 
     pre-natal development is manslaughter. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 
     Sec. 13-1103(A)(5) (West 1989 & Supp. 1998).
       Illinois--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage 
     of pre-natal development is intentional homicide, voluntary 
     manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter or reckless 
     homicide. Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 720, Sec. Sec. 5/9-1.2, 5/9-
     2.1, 5/9-3.2 (1993).
       Louisiana--The killing of an ``unborn child'' is first 
     degree feticide, second degree feticide, or third degree 
     feticide. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 14:32.5-14.32.8, read 
     with Sec. Sec. 14:2(1), (7), (11) (West 1997).
       Minnesota--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage 
     of pre-natal development is murder (first, second, or third 
     degree) or manslaughter (first or second degree). It is also 
     a felony to cause the death of an ``unborn child'' during the 
     commission of a felony. Minn. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 609.266, 
     609.2661-609.2665, 609.268(1) (West 1987). The death of an 
     ``unborn child'' through operation of a motor vehicle is 
     criminal vehicular operation. Minn. Stat. Ann. Sec. 609.21 
     (West 1999).
       Missouri--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage 
     of pre-natal development is involuntary manslaughter or first 
     degree murder. Mo. Ann. Stat. Sec. Sec. 1.205, 565.024, 
     565.020 (Vernon Supp. 1999), State v. Knapp, 843 S.W. 2d 345 
     (Mo. 1992), State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W. 2d 286 (Mo. App. W.D. 
     1997).
       North Dakota--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any 
     stage of pre-natal development is murder, felony murder, 
     manslaughter, or negligent homicide. N.D. Cent. Code 
     Sec. Sec. 12.1-17.1-01 to 12.1-17.1-04 (1997).
       Ohio--At any stage of pre-natal development, if an ``unborn 
     member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in 
     the womb of another'' is killed, it is aggravated murder, 
     murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, 
     negligent homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide, and 
     vehicular homicide. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sec. Sec. 2903.01 to 
     2903.07, 2903.09 (Anderson 1996 & Supp. 1998).
       Pennsylvania--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any 
     stage of pre-natal development is first, second, or third-
     degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 
     Ann. Sec. Sec. 2601 to 2609 (1998).
       South Dakota--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any 
     stage of pre-natal development is fetal homicide, 
     manslaughter, or vehicular homicide. S.D. Codified Laws Ann. 
     Sec. 22-16-1, 22-16-1.1, 22-16-15(5), 22-16-20, and 22-16-41, 
     read with Sec. Sec. 22-1-2(31), 22-1-2(50A)(Supp. 1997).
       Utah--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage of 
     pre-natal development is treated as any other homicide. Utah 
     Code Ann. Sec. 76-5-201 et seq. (Supp. 1998).
       Wisconsin--The killing of an ``unborn child'' at any stage 
     of pre-natal development is first-degree intentional 
     homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, second-degree 
     intentional homicide, second-degree reckless homicide, 
     homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, 
     explosives or fire, homicide by intoxicated use of vehicle or 
     firearm, or homicide by negligent operation of vehicle. Wis. 
     Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 939.75, 939.24, 939.25, 940.01, 940.02, 
     940.05, 940.06, 940.08, 940.09, 940.10 (West 1998).


 partial-coverage unborn victim states (13) (states with homicide laws 
that recognize unborn children as victims, but only during part of the 
                    period of pre-natal development)

       Note: These laws are gravely deficient because they do not 
     recognize unborn children as victims during certain periods 
     of their pre-natal development. Nevertheless, they are 
     described here for informational purposes.
       Arkansas--The killing of an ``unborn child'' of twelve 
     weeks or greater gestation is murder, manslaughter, or 
     negligent homicide. Enacted April 9, 1999, 1999 AR H.B. 1329. 
     (A separate Arkansas law makes it a battery to cause injury 
     to a woman during a felony or Class A misdemeanor to cause 
     her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth, or to cause 
     injury under conditions manifesting extreme indifference to 
     human life and that results in a miscarriage or stillbirth.)
       California--The killing of an unborn child after the 
     embryonic stage is murder. Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 187(a) (West 
     1999).
       Florida--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is 
     manslaughter. Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec. 782.09 (West 1992).
       The killing of an unborn child after viability is vehicular 
     homicide. Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec. 782.071 (West 1999).
       Georgia--The killing of an ``unborn child'' after 
     quickening is feticide, vehicular feticide, or feticide by 
     vessel. Ga. Code Ann. Sec. 16-5-80 (1996); Sec. 40-6-393.1 
     (1997); and Sec. 52-7-12.3 (1997).
       Massachusetts--The killing of an unborn child after 
     viability is vehicular homicide. Commonwealth v. Cass, 467 
     N.E.2d 1324 (Mass. 1984). The killing of an unborn child 
     after viability is involuntary manslaughter. Commonwealth v. 
     Lawrence, 536 N.E.2d 571 (Mass. 1989).
       Michigan--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is 
     manslaughter. Mich. Stat. Ann. Sec. 28.554 (Callaghan 1990). 
     The Supreme Court of Michigan has interpreted this statute to 
     apply to only those unborn children who are viable. Larkin v. 
     Cahalan, 208 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. 1973). (A separate Michigan 
     law, effective Jan. 1, 1999, provides felony penalties for 
     actions that intentionally, or in wanton or willful disregard 
     for consequences, cause a ``miscarriage or stillbirth,'' or 
     cause physical injury to an ``embryo or fetus.'')
       Mississippi--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is 
     manslaughter. Miss. Code Ann. Sec. 97-3-37 (1994).
       Nevada--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is 
     manslaughter. Nev. Rev. Stat. Sec. 200.210 (1997).
       Oklahoma--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is 
     manslaughter. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, Sec. 713 (West 1983). 
     The killing of an unborn child after viability is homicide. 
     Hughes v. State, 868 P.2d 730 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
       Rhode Island--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is 
     manslaughter. The statute defines ``quick child'' to mean a 
     viable child. R.I. Gen. Laws Sec. 11-23-5 (1994).
       South Carolina--The killing of an unborn child after 
     viability is homicide. State v. Horne, 319 S.E.2d 703 (S.C. 
     1984); State v. Ard, 505 S.E.2d 328 (S.C. 1998).
       Tennessee--The killing of an unborn child after viability 
     is first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary 
     manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and reckless homicide. 
     Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 39-13-201, 39-13-202, 39-13-210, 39-13-
     211, 39-13-213, 39-13-214, 39-13-215 (1997 & Supp. 1998).
       Washington--The killing of an ``unborn quick child'' is 
     manslaughter. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. Sec. 9A.32.060(1)(b) (West 
     Supp. 1999).


 states without unborn victims laws, which instead criminalize certain 
    conduct that ``terminates a human pregnancy'' or that causes a 
                            miscarriage (7)

       Note: These laws are gravely deficient, because they do not 
     recognize unborn children as victims, nor allow justice to be 
     done on their behalf. These laws are included here for 
     informational purposes.
       Indiana--An individual who knowingly or intentionally 
     ``terminates a human pregnancy'' commits feticide. Ind. Code 
     Ann Sec. 35-42-1-6 (Burns 1994 & Supp. 1998).
       Iowa--An individual who intentionally ``terminates a human 
     pregnancy'' without the consent of the pregnant woman commits 
     a felony. This law also sets forth other crimes involving the 
     termination of a human pregnancy, such as during the 
     commission of a forcible felony. Iowa Code Ann Sec. 707.8 
     (West Supp. 1999).
       Kansas--Injury to a pregnant woman during the commission of 
     a felony or misdemeanor which causes a miscarriage results

[[Page H1630]]

     in specific levels of offense severity. Kan. Stat. Ann 
     Sec. 21-3440 (1997). Also, injury to a pregnant woman through 
     the operation of a motor vehicle which causes a miscarriage 
     results in specific levels of offense severity. Kan. Stat. 
     Ann. Sec. 21-3441 (1997).
       New Hampshire--It is a felony to cause injury to another 
     person that results in a miscarriage or stillbirth. N.H. Rev. 
     Stat. Ann Sec. Sec. 631:1-631:2 (1996).
       New Mexico--It is a felony to injure a pregnant woman 
     during the commission of a felony and cause her to undergo a 
     miscarriage or stillbirth. N.M. Stat. Ann. Sec. 30-3-7 
     (Michie 1994). It is also a crime to injure a pregnant woman 
     through the unlawful operation of a vehicle which causes her 
     to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth. N.M. Stat. Ann 
     Sec. Sec. 66-8-101.1 (Michie 1998).
       North Carolina--It is a felony to injure a pregnant woman 
     during the commission of a felony and cause her to undergo a 
     miscarriage or stillbirth. It is a misdemeanor to cause a 
     miscarriage or stillbirth during a misdemeanor act of 
     domestic violence. N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 14-18.2 (Supp. 1998).
       Virginia--The premeditated killing of a pregnant woman with 
     the intent to cause the termination of her pregnancy is 
     capital murder. Va. Code Ann. 18.2-31 (Michie Supp. 1998). 
     The unpremeditated killing of a pregnant woman with the 
     intent to cause the termination of her pregnancy is also a 
     crime. Va. Code Ann. Sec. 18.2-32.1 (Michie Supp. 1998). It 
     is a felony to injure a pregnant woman with the intent to 
     maim or kill her or to terminate her pregnancy and she is 
     injured or her pregnancy is terminated. Va. Code Ann. 
     Sec. 18.2-51.2 (Michie Supp. 1998).
     New York: Conflicting Statutes
       New York--Under New York statutory law, the killing of an 
     ``unborn child'' after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy is 
     homicide. N.Y. Pen. Law Sec. 125.00 (McKinney 1998). But 
     under a separate statutory provision, a ``person'' that is 
     the victim of a homicide is statutorily defined as ``a human 
     being who has been born and is alive.'' N.Y. Pen. Law 
     Sec. 125.05 (McKinney 1998). See People v. Joseph, 130 Misc. 
     2d 377, 496 N.Y.S.2d 328 (County Court 1985); In re Gloria 
     C., 124 Misc.2d 313, 476 N.Y.S.2d 991 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1984); 
     People v. Vercelletto, 514 N.Y.S.2d 177 (Co.Ct. 1987).

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just wanted to comment on the gentleman's argument about other 
States having similar laws, and so why can we not do the same thing? 
The reason we have not done the same thing is that many of these State 
laws are obviously drafted differently. They do not use controversial 
terms, some of them, as ``unborn child'' or ``child in utero.''
  The second thing is that none of these State laws have been validated 
or upheld in a Federal court, let alone a Supreme Court decision. They 
have not been tested. So I do not think that gives us a presumption 
that we can copy State law. I say to my colleagues, we should be 
creating Federal law that States may want to pattern themselves after.
  Then, we might want to take into consideration the experience with 
State laws that have not been very favorable on this subject. Some of 
these laws have been used as excuses to justify prosecuting women for 
their conduct while they are pregnant. A whole host of problems arise 
this way.
  In South Carolina, ironically, now they prosecute women whose babies 
are found to have drugs in their system; the mothers are prosecuted. In 
another case, the court ordered into custody a pregnant woman who 
refused medical care because of religious convictions, in an attempt to 
ensure that the baby be born safely. We had a National Public Radio 
case about a pregnant woman being forced into custody at a State 
medical facility in Massachusetts to ensure that her baby was born 
safely. In another case, a court sent a student to prison to prevent 
her from obtaining a midterm abortion.
  So I say to my colleagues, let us stop pointing recklessly to all of 
these laws in State courts as if they are giving us a reason to make 
the same kind of untested legislation that they are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, despite the claims of my 
colleagues who oppose H.R. 503, this legislation before us today is not 
about abortion. It does not infringe on a woman's legal right to abort 
her child. It does not place legal limitations upon those in the 
medical profession who perform abortion. In fact, the only time this 
bill even mentions abortion is to protect the woman's legal right to 
have one, and the doctor's legal right to perform them. Yet, those who 
oppose this bill would like the American people to believe that this is 
an attempt to reverse Roe v. Wade.
  This leads me to ask my colleagues who oppose this bill, why the 
smoke screen? Why are they so fearful of protecting a pregnant woman 
and her unborn child? Why are they standing in the way of legislation 
which provides protection for a woman against violence? Recognizing the 
unborn child as a victim of crime does not affect the woman's legal 
right to abort the child.
  Mr. Speaker, the smoke screen of abortion used by those in opposition 
to this bill will not work. The majority of Congress and the American 
people know that a woman and her unborn child must be protected against 
criminal acts of violence. When a pregnant woman is assaulted and 
bodily harm is brought about to her unborn child, there are two 
victims, not one.
  This bill was not introduced to erode current abortion law. Let me 
tell my colleagues why this bill was introduced. Currently, under 
Federal law, if a criminal assaults or kills a woman who is pregnant 
and thereby causes the death or injury to that unborn child, the 
criminal faces no consequences for taking or injuring this unborn life. 
That is why this bill is introduced, and that is why it is a tragedy 
that this worthwhile piece of legislation is being muddled in abortion 
politics by those who instinctively reject any bill that deals with the 
child in the womb.
  It is unfortunate that those in opposition to this bill today believe 
that a victim such as Zachariah Marciniak, whose story has been 
described previously by my colleagues, was not a child or not a human 
being. I wonder how many of my colleagues would suggest that when 
planning for the miracle of a birth, in painting the nursery, attending 
baby showers, buying a crib and clothes, often name the child before he 
or she is delivered, all in preparation for a newborn, is not 
preparation for a life, a life that lives within.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe, like the father who lost his wife in 
the Oklahoma City bombing, that the loss was even greater. He lost his 
wife and his unborn baby. In that awful tragedy, we as a nation lost 
not 168, but 171 people, as three of the women killed during that 
atrocity were with child. They were murdered along with their mothers.
  Consider also the fact that last year the House of Representatives 
passed the Innocent Child Protection Act by a vote of 417-0. This bill 
prohibited a State or Federal Government for executing a woman ``while 
she carries a child in utero.'' That bill, which again passed 
unanimously, defined ``child in utero'' the same way it is defined in 
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. If the House is, without 
dissension, willing to protect unborn children from execution, why is 
it controversial to also protect unborn children from a deadly assault?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, those in the gallery, those watching this debate on 
national television around the Nation might assume that the reason that 
we are spending these hours on the floor pursuing this legislation is 
because we are trying to solve a problem, that there is somehow a 
problem that exists, that out in America on Federal property women are 
being assaulted, and they are losing their fetuses in those assaults, 
and their perpetrators are going unpunished or going too lightly 
punished.

                              {time}  1230

  I do not think there is any evidence at all that that is the problem. 
If it were, this legislation would be a priority for the police and law 
enforcement officials of our country. This would be a priority for the 
district attorneys in our counties. This would be a priority for the 
attorneys general. This would be a priority for the coalitions against 
domestic violence.
  That is really not why we are here. My friend, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), is a good friend of mine. I admire him 
more than I admire many Members of this Congress. He is a good man.
  But I think in truth we all know that this bill is here because it is 
aimed at abortion politics. This bill is

[[Page H1631]]

strategized, is being pushed. The grass-roots organizations that are 
pushing for this legislation are pushing it because they are part of 
the anti-abortion part of this country's population.
  The reason they do that is because for the last 30 years abortion has 
been legal in this country and because the courts have said that, 
particularly in the early stages of a woman's pregnancy, the choice of 
what to do with that pregnancy is hers. It is well-established law.
  How do you defeat that? You do not bring an amendment to the floor to 
change the Constitution in that regard. That is not popular in this 
country. So we bring bills like this, which are designed to come in the 
back door, and try to define a fetus as a human being, a full person.
  This is brought here for the purpose of abortion politics to 
establish in law under the guise, under the obviously compelling notion 
that we want to protect women against violence, when its purpose is 
really quite otherwise.
  If those Members who are really interested in solving this problem 
will support the Lofgren amendment, this really does get tough on those 
who would assault a pregnant woman; it does get tough, and does not 
have the ulterior motive of trying to play abortion politics with 
something as critical as a woman's assault.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all 
Members that it is not appropriate under the rules of the House to 
refer to our guests in the gallery.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill. One of the reasons to 
address a comment made by the prior speaker about there are not crimes 
like this being committed out there, I want to cite the March edition 
of the Journal of the American Medical Association, which published a 
study revealing that the leading cause of death among pregnant women in 
the State of Maryland was not health-related ailments, but rather, 
murder.
  This is not simply a case that might occur on Federal property, but 
it covers a range of potential offenses where it is important for that 
unborn child to be recognized, and if injured or killed, appropriate 
punishment be given for that unborn child as well as the pregnant 
mother. In kidnapping cases, that is a Federal offense; in drug deals 
gone bad, bank robberies, and even the most recent example of Oklahoma 
City and the terrorism there, and the fact that there were three unborn 
children killed in that.
  This type of violent act is exactly what H.R. 503 is designed to 
hopefully deter. We can maybe deter some of these offenses from taking 
place, and if necessary, if they occur, to appropriately punish them.
  This bill will correct the failure of both Federal and military law 
to treat a criminal assault against a pregnant woman as an additional 
crime perpetrated against the unborn child. Currently, as has been said 
numerous times today, even one who purposely kills an unborn child, who 
sets out to kill that unborn child, has not committed a Federal crime, 
as the law now stands.
  Let me make three additional points, if I could, very quickly. This 
is not an abortion vote. The sky is not falling on the issue of pro-
choice pro-life. I do not understand why people come up here and stand 
and say that this is an abortion vote. I respect their opinion; but in 
reading the bill, I do not understand it.
  Someone maybe can connect the dots for me on this, because if this 
bill is wrong, it is unconstitutional. It does not square with Roe v. 
Wade. This bill is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade; this bill will be 
held unconstitutional with Roe v. Wade being cited. So if there is a 
problem there, this bill is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. It will 
be the other way around.
  This act specifically excludes abortion, an abortion procedure 
consented to by the mother. It also specifically excludes any action by 
the mother which results in harm to the unborn child. So all these 
South Carolina cases and other cases that have been cited would not 
apply here. They are not covered.
  To me, it should not matter whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, 
one ought to be able to support this bill. As has been mentioned 
several times already, this definition is something that is not new to 
this House. Last year we voted 417-0 to prohibit the death penalty 
being given to a pregnant woman. We use that same definition.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my friend, who is a former member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, who assured us that Roe v. Wade was 
not under attack, well, most people understand that it is under attack. 
That is why the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League 
is opposed, Planned Parenthood Federation of America is opposed, the 
National Abortion Federation is opposed, the National Women's Law 
Center is opposed.
  Does the gentleman think they do not understand this bill very much? 
I think they do.
  The National Partnership for Women and Families, they are opposed. 
The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, they are opposed. The 
American Civil Liberties Union, they are opposed. The Feminist 
Majority, they are opposed. The American Association of University 
Women, they are opposed. The National Family Planning and Reproductive 
Health Association, they are opposed. The American Women's Medical 
Association, they are opposed. The National Coalition Against Domestic 
Violence, they are opposed. The National Council of Jewish Women, they 
are opposed. The National Organization for Women, they are opposed. The 
Physicians for Reproductive Choice in Health, they are opposed. The 
People for the American Way, they are opposed.
  Now, they do not understand what the Members are trying to do, do 
they? They do not get it? They have misunderstood the bill of the 
gentleman from South Carolina? All of these organizations, a dozen of 
them, they should relax, Roe v. Wade is not under attack. The gentleman 
in the well on the Republican side just told us so. It is okay. Relax.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in opposition to H.R. 503.
  As the mother of a pregnant daughter and the mother-in-law of a 
pregnant daughter-in-law, a proud grandmother of Isabel and Eve, the 
sense that somehow I do not understand the incredible mystery and magic 
and holiness of a pregnancy because I do not support this legislation, 
I really resent that very much.
  We look forward in our family to welcoming these two new babies, and 
a crime against my daughter or daughter-in-law would be absolutely 
devastating, and even more so because each is pregnant. We all agree on 
that.
  That is the part that I do not get. We all do agree that we need to 
change the law to add penalties because a crime against a pregnant 
woman is really devastating. Why can we not agree on that? We have the 
Motherhood Protection Act, the Lofgren amendment, that does just that, 
it increases the penalties. It is not their bill or no bill. We could 
agree that we should increase the penalties.
  I am happy to connect the dots for the gentleman on why this is an 
anti-abortion bill. It creates personhood for even a fertilized egg 
equal to that of a woman. That does not make any sense. Even if she 
does not know she is pregnant, that fertilized egg now has equal value 
to her.
  We should create law that recognizes that this is a devastating 
crime, and we should increase the penalties if my daughter or my 
daughter-in-law is violently assaulted. We agree on that.
  Why do we not, then, move forward as a body in agreement that we 
should pass this amendment? It does not detract. In fact, it increases 
the deterrent against violence against women at a time when more 
violence than other times occurs. Pregnancy is an incentive for 
violence against women. That is when it occurs more.
  Let us get together and pass the Lofgren amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

[[Page H1632]]

  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, most of the Members of the House remember that I served 
as a prosecutor and a judge before I came to Congress. In fact, I 
served as a prosecutor with the acting Speaker this afternoon in the 
State of Ohio.
  I hear the cry for legislation to deal with a situation that none of 
us want to happen, a situation where harm comes to a woman while she is 
pregnant. I hear the cry under the veil that we as Members of Congress 
have to stand up for pregnant women, and we have to do things so 
nothing happens to pregnant women.
  But legislation is not the only answer to help pregnant women who are 
harmed. There are other ways in which we can help them. In fact, the 
Violence Against Women Act legislation could have helped women in this 
circumstance.
  But be that as it may, as we are debating legislation, one of the 
jobs of a good legislator is to make sure that when we pass the 
legislation that we know it will stand up to judicial scrutiny. For 
those who are the proponents of this legislation, if they only look to 
it, they will recognize that it has problems to the extent that a 
judiciary would send this back.
  As a prosecutor, I tried my darnedest to never take a case into court 
if I knew the law had a problem, because how could I explain to the 
victim that I prosecuted the case with the knowledge that the law had a 
problem that would not stand appellate scrutiny?
  Let us look at why this legislation has some dilemmas. The provision 
or key phrase ``child who is in utero'' is vague. It makes it difficult 
to get before an appellate court and explain the vagueness of that 
phrase.
  The legislation lacks a mens rea requirement, that one did not know 
or have reason to know that the woman who is the victim of the crime 
was pregnant.
  And then even more importantly, the legislation lacks a predicate for 
the offense, that the crime against the woman be first established.
  Now, to my colleagues who want to push for women who are harmed while 
they are pregnant, we offer them an alternative. We offer them an 
alternative that we as good legislators believe will withstand the 
scrutiny of an appellate court. We offer them an alternative that 
provides for the same penalty, that we believe is consistent with 
current law, regardless of what is happening in the other States.
  As has previously been said, let us try and be 435 strong in favor of 
pregnant women who are harmed. Let us step up to the plate and say that 
this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, regardless of our view on choice, 
regardless of our view on many other issues, and we have not agreed on 
much since we have been here in this 107th Congress, but let us choose 
this legislation to agree on; that regardless of our position, we will 
support the Lofgren alternative.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Unborn 
Victims of Violence Act of 2001. This bill will be the first, the first 
in the Federal statutes, to give separate legal status to a fetus.
  The proponents of the legislation claim that they are protecting the 
mother, but that is not their true intention. If it were their true 
intention, why would the anti-choice right-to-life groups support the 
bill, and why would the domestic violence victims advocacy groups 
oppose the bill?
  If people were so concerned about violence against pregnant women, 
why are not those pregnant women even mentioned in the bill?

                              {time}  1245

  If the issue is about violence to women, why do the proponents of the 
bill not support the Lofgren substitute, which is concerned about the 
woman and her fetus? Mr. Speaker, the majority of Americans are pro-
choice and they depend on this Congress to protect a woman's right to 
choose while simultaneously working to make abortion a rare occurrence. 
The women of this country count on us as legislators to craft Federal 
policies that are really intended to protect their health and well-
being. They rely on us to pass legislation that will protect their 
reproductive choices. Women depend on us to know the difference between 
legislation that is truly intended to protect them and a poorly 
disguised vehicle designed to reopen the debate on Roe v. Wade.
  We are not fooled by this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and, frankly, 
neither are the women we represent. If Members of this House really 
care about taking steps to protect pregnant women and to punish the 
terrible perpetrators who mercilessly beat them, then we will all join 
together, pro-life and pro-choice, and join hands across the aisle to 
vote for the Lofgren substitute.
  The Lofgren substitute actually, as we will hear, provides greater 
levels of punishment to the perpetrators of the heinous crime of 
harming a pregnant woman. In fact, there is only one difference between 
the substitute and the underlying bill; and that underlying difference 
reveals the true goal of H.R. 503. The underlying bill creates a 
Federal criminal offense that provides a pregnancy from conception to 
birth with a legal status separate from that of the mother.
  Regardless of what we are hearing today from proponents of this 
legislation, there is only one reason to support this new criminal 
offense over the Lofgren substitute, and that is to take the first step 
of defending a fetus at any stage of development as a person.
  If the supporters of this legislation want to debate the merits of 
abortion, I think we should do it out in the open. They should be 
embarrassed about cloaking their true intent in an issue. They should 
be embarrassed about cloaking their true intent on an issue that we all 
agree upon and that we care deeply about, and that is protecting 
pregnant women from violence.
  But the fact is, this is intentional; and the reason is there is a 
great reluctance on the part of the proponents of this bill to openly 
debate the issue of a woman's right to choose in this Chamber. 
Opponents of the right to choose know they are out of step with the 
majority of the American public, and so they are working sideways to 
begin to erode that right in our statutes.
  We keep hearing that those who support this bill talk about two 
victims. But what they are omitting is the fact that this act does not 
mention women. So, in fact, the bill is not about two victims at all.
  Mr. Speaker, the Lofgren substitute improves the bill. It is a good 
alternative. It punishes the perpetrators. I urge adoption of the 
amendment; and if the amendment is not adopted, I urge defeat of the 
ill-intentioned legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the balance of 
my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), 
a ranking subcommittee member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me quickly discuss something that is extremely 
private and extremely important. When I first came to this Congress, we 
started discussing this concept called partial-birth abortion.
  As a new Member, I was unaware of a procedure that was out of line of 
a decision between mother and physician and God. But all of a sudden, 
this Congress began to raise its head about something called partial-
birth abortion. It simply was a procedure that doctors were using to 
save the lives of mothers who wanted to have children.
  We come here today, as the New York Times has said, with another 
scheme very personal for me, because I have had pregnancies that have 
survived and those that have not. I wish I did not have to come to the 
floor of the House to discuss this.
  But I believe the Lofgren substitute speaks to the concern that we 
have as Americans. How dare you assault a woman who is pregnant. How 
dare you abuse her. How dare you take her as girlfriend or wife or 
friend and abuse her and cause the loss of that pregnancy. The Lofgren 
substitute answers that concern. If that woman is injured that results 
in an injury to that pregnancy or a death, that means that that 
pregnancy does not come to term, you will be faulted and convicted, 20 
years or maximum life.
  This is a scheme. Year after year after year, this is an attempt to 
violate

[[Page H1633]]

Roe v. Wade. Why? Because H.R. 503 does not speak to that woman who has 
been violated and abused. It simply says that we are tying it to that 
embryo. Why? Because we want to say to America that we are trying to 
destroy Roe v. Wade. That is a privilege of the American people. That 
is the constitutional law. That is the law of the land. That is the 
Supreme Court decision.
  In committee, I tried to offer an amendment that would suggest to us 
whether the opposing side is truly sincere; and that amendment said 
that replacing unborn children in H.R. 503 to violence during 
pregnancy, that gets to the issue. It says that, if there is violence 
during pregnancy that resulted in the loss or injury to the woman and 
then the fetus, then there would be penalty.
  But, no, they refused because they want to ensure that there is no 
relationship to that pregnant woman, there are no feelings about that 
pregnant woman. It is only to tear apart Roe v. Wade.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, this is a constitutional issue because it 
comes to the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Committee on 
the Judiciary, and the very reason is to undermine Roe v. Wade.
  I have passion and I have feelings about any woman who involuntarily 
is forced to lose that child that she is carrying. There is no doubt 
that our hearts are pure on both sides of the aisle. But this body is 
forced to follow the law. Vote for the Lofgren substitute and defeat 
that bill because this is an unconstitutional attack on the right to 
choose and the privacy of every American.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition of H.R. 503, ``Unborn 
Victims of Violence Act of 2001.'' This is an unacceptable attempt to 
create a legal status for the unborn, which would could have enormous 
adverse ramifications for women in America.
  Let me be clear. I would like to express my opposition to H.R. 503, 
``Unborn Victims of Crime Act'' because I believe this is a veiled 
attempt to create a legal status for the unborn. While we would all 
like to protect pregnant women and the fetus from intentional harm by 
others, this bill seeks to create a legal status that will give anti-
abortion advocates a back door to overturning current law. I have seen 
similar legislation come before our committee and I am sorry to see it 
before the Congress yet again.
  I believe that the cosponsors of this bill had good intentions when 
it was introduced, but the practical effect of this legislation would 
effectively overturn 25 years of law concerning the right of a woman to 
choose.
  I sympathize with the mothers who have lost fetuses due to the 
intentional violent acts of others. Clearly in these situations, a 
person should receive enhanced penalties for endangering the life of a 
pregnant woman. In those cases where the woman is killed, the effect of 
this crime is a devastating loss that should also be punished as a 
crime against the pregnant woman.
  However, any attempt to punish someone for the crime of harming or 
killing a fetus should not receive a penalty greater than the 
punishment or crime for harming or killing the mother. By enhancing the 
penalty for the loss of the pregnant woman, we acknowledge that within 
her was the potential for life. This can be done without creating a new 
category for unborn fetuses.
  H.R. 503 would amend the federal crime code to create a new federal 
crime for bodily injury or death of an ``unborn child'' who is in 
utero. In brief, there is no requirement or intent to cause such death 
under federal law. The use of the words as ``unborn child,'' ``death'' 
and ``bodily injury'' are designed to inflame and establish in federal 
precedent of recognizing the fetus as a person, which, if extended 
further, would result in a major collision between the rights of the 
mother and the rights of a fetus. While the proponents of this bill 
claim that the bill would not punish women who choose to terminate 
their pregnancies, it is my firm belief that this bill will give anti-
abortion advocates a powerful tool against women's choice.

  The state courts that have expressed an opinion on this issue have 
done so with the caveat that while Roe protects a woman's 
constitutional right to choose, it does not protect a third party's 
destruction of a fetus.
  This bill will create a slippery slope that will result in doctors 
being sued for performing abortions, especially if the procedure is 
controversial, such as partial birth abortion. Although this bill 
exempts abortion procedures as a crime against the fetus, the potential 
for increased civil liability is present.
  Supporters of this bill should address the larger issue of domestic 
violence. For women who are the victims of violence by a husband or 
boyfriend, this bill does not address the abuse, but merely the result 
of that abuse.
  If we are concerned about protecting a fetus from intentional harm 
such as bombs and other forms of violence, then we also need to be just 
as diligent in our support for women who are victimized by violence.
  In the unfortunate cases of random violence, we need to strengthen 
some of our other laws, such as real gun control and controlling the 
sale of explosives. These reforms are more effective in protecting life 
than this bill.
  We do not need this bill to provide special status to unborn fetuses. 
A better alternative is to create a sentence enhancement for any 
intentional harm done to a pregnant woman. This bill is simply a clever 
way of creating a legal status to erode abortion rights.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard people opposed to this bill say time and 
time again that this bill takes away the right to choose, and they are 
so so wrong. This bill respects the right of those who have chosen to 
carry their baby to term, because they want the baby to be born.
  The opponents of the bill have massed their arguments saying that we 
are providing legal protection for fertilized eggs and zygotes and 
blastocysts, but they ignore the fact that this bill provides 
protection regardless of at what stage of development the unborn child 
is.
  They would turn around and say defeat this bill because this dead 
child as a result of an act of violence against a woman in my home 
State of Wisconsin should not be protected. This is a child that was 
about ready to be born before he was murdered. The man who committed 
this crime, because it was a mere assault on the mother, is now out of 
prison.
  We have to pass this bill so that somebody who kills a child like 
this one spends a lot of time in prison to pay for his crime.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to a bill that I 
find troublesome on many levels. H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of 
Violence Act, at first glance, seems to be a compassionate piece of 
legislation that harbors only good intentions towards women. However, 
Mr. Speaker, this legislation has a significant impact on the Supreme 
court's findings in Roe v. Wade.
  This measure would conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. 
Wade, and the constitution in general.
  An alternative measure that I have reviewed and which I can support 
is the Lofgren substitute amendment.
  Under the Lofgren proposal, a separate federal criminal offense would 
be created for any harm done to a pregnant woman; the pregnant woman 
being recognized as the primary victim of a crime causing the 
termination of a pregnancy. An offense would be created that protects 
women and punishes violence resulting in injury or termination of a 
pregnancy; a maximum 20-year sentence would be provided for the injury 
to a woman's pregnancy and a maximum life sentence for termination of a 
woman's pregnancy; and focuses on the harm to the pregnant woman, 
providing a deterrent against violence against women.
  This amendment, otherwise known as the Motherhood Protection Act, 
provides for the full protection of expectant mothers against violent 
crimes without legislating any direct conflict with the highest court 
of the land.
  If the supporters of H.R. 503 are truly concerned about protecting of 
pregnant women, then let us craft a bill that can be supported by all 
involved, and actually speaks to women's rights instead of advancing 
the pro-life agenda in this backdoor fashion.
  When a crime is committed against pregnant women which results in the 
termination of the fetus, a tragedy has occurred. Accordingly let us 
adopt legislation that recognizes this tragedy without recognizing 
something antithetical to the Supreme Court's prior decision.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 
503, the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act.'' This bill continues to 
demonstrate the troubling tendency in Congress to undermine women's 
constitutional reproductive rights.
  Since 1973 and the Roe v. Wade decision, we have seen Congress slowly 
chip away at women's right to choose in an effort to ultimately nullify 
this landmark decision. H.R. 503 is an ill-disguised attack on Roe v. 
Wade. That is because at root it is an attempt to redefine when life 
begins.
  The bill seeks to create a separate Federal criminal offense for 
criminal acts that cause death or bodily injury to the ``unborn'' 
fetus. Tellingly, it does not create any comparable offense for killing 
or injuring the woman bearing the fetus. I think that makes it clear 
that the real purpose here is not to protect the victims of violence, 
but to try to get Congress on

[[Page H1634]]

record as specifying that life begins at conception.
  There are serious threats to women, including women bearing children, 
that we need to address. Domestic violence is the single greatest cause 
of injury to women. Although the statistics vary, according to the 
American Medical Association, approximately four million women were 
physically abused by their husbands or live-in partners in 1998. That 
means that 10,959 women on average are abused every day. This statistic 
is deeply disconcerting.
  Domestic violence crimes resulting in the loss of pregnancy are 
terribly tragic, and these acts should be punished, but H.R. 503 is not 
the proper approach to eradicating this problem. We need to concentrate 
our efforts on protecting abused women by passing measures, such as the 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, to promote 
protection from violence as well as increasing assistance to abused 
women. That is why I support the amendment proposed by the gentlewoman 
from California, Congresswoman Lofgren.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to help these victims of 
violence and protect their well being. Domestic violence is a national 
concern, and we need to do everything within our capabilities to make 
sure that it receives due attention. Let us avoid passing any Federal 
law that will undermine a woman's right to choose as protected by the 
Constitution of the United States, and let us focus on the real issue 
at hand--eradicating violence against women.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for H.R. 503, 
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.
  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 a 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' 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 
recognized 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 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. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 503, the 
Unborn Victims of Violence Act. While many proponents of this bill 
contend that it is necessary to protect pregnant women from assault 
which results in the death of her fetus, I believe that this bill could 
jeopardize a woman's right to choose. I say this because H.R. 503 
attempts to legally recognize the fetus as a ``person'' with rights and 
interests separate from and equal to those of the woman. In fact, if 
H.R. 503 is enacted into law, it will be the first time a federal law 
recognizes a zygote, embryo, or fetus as an independent victim of crime 
entitled to full legal rights distinct from the woman.
  I would like to make it clear that I am not advocating leniency for a 
perpetrator of abuse against a pregnant woman. Instead, I believe that 
we need to recognize that the true victim of a violent act is the woman 
first and foremost.
  Last year, I supported the Motherhood Protection Act which 
established a separate offense for abusive conduct against a pregnant 
woman resulting in the termination of her pregnancy. This crime would 
be punishable by a fine and imprisonment of up to 20 years, and if the 
pregnancy is terminated, regardless of if it was intentional, the 
assailant could be sentenced to life in prison. I will support this 
substitute again today.
  It is undeniably a tragedy when a violent act committed against a 
woman results in the termination of her pregnancy. Actually, I believe 
it is a tragedy when violence against women, whether pregnant or not, 
is carried out. However, I believe the best way to enforce the law is 
to help the woman, not unnecessarily bring the threat of rescinding the 
right to choose into the debate.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition of H.R. 
503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 and in support of the 
Lofgren-Conyers substitute.
  While I fully support punishment for violent acts against women at 
any and every time, but most especially against pregnant women, the 
Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 should be opposed. This bill as 
drafted will diminish, rather than enhance the rights of women and do 
nothing to protect pregnant women from violence.
  Additionally, it is worthy to note, that H.R. 503 is unanimously 
opposed by a plethora of groups whose mission is the protection of 
women's rights and who oppose domestic violence; including Planned 
Parenthood Federation of America, the Women's law Center, the American 
Medical Women's Association, National Coalition Against Domestic 
Violence, National Council of Jewish Women and People for the American 
Way.
  I support the Lofgren-Conyers substitute because it would protect 
pregnant women while upholding a woman's constitutional right to 
choose. We must focus on the goals that H.R. 503 calls for, which is to 
deter acts of violence against pregnant women that cause injury to 
their fetuses or the termination of a pregnancy. We must do so, 
however, without opening the door to overturning Roe v. Wade and making 
an abortion a federal crime.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the 
Record an article about Tracy Scheide Marciniak, a fellow Wisconsinite. 
She was brutally beaten 4 days before she was supposed to give birth to 
her son, Zachariah. I would like to submit her story for the Record.
  Her husband at the time punched her twice in the abdomen and brutally 
beat her. Her husband refused to call for help until it was too late. 
By the time she reached the hospital, Zachariah had died from blunt 
force trauma. Her ex-husband, Glendale Black, was convicted of 
assaulting his wife, but not of murdering Zachariah, their unborn 
child.
  In the aftermath of this violent crime, the Wisconsin Legislature 
enacted one of the nation's strongest unborn victim's laws. Regardless, 
there is no coinciding federal law. If this incident were to happen 
today in a federal jurisdiction, the killer would still only be 
prosecuted for assault. This needs to change.
  H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, can fix this injustice. 
Passage of this bill would make it a federal crime to harm an unborn 
child during a violent criminal act. Federal judges could impose the 
same punishment as if injury or death occurred to the unborn child's 
mother, except for the death penalty.
  I disagree with those who believe that Zachariah was not yet a human 
being. Had his mother gone into labor a week before her husband abused 
her, Zachariah would today be a healthy and happy child. There was no 
difference between the Zachariah that was in his mother's womb when she 
was beaten with a Zachariah that may have been born a week earlier. He 
was still a living person. There should be no exception in the criminal 
code for violent acts on babies inside the womb as opposed to those who 
are in their mother's arms. The current law makes no logical sense and 
should be changed according to this act.
  Zachariah is a biblical name. In the Bible, Zachariah and his wife 
Elizabeth were faithful followers of God's commandments. They never had 
any children and were both too old to do so. As Zachariah entered a 
room within the temple he presided over, Gabriel appeared before him 
and told him that he and his wife will have a son. God blessed this 
couple for being faithful. Their child was blessed, as was Tracy's 
child. In scripture, Zachariah means ``God remembers.''
  We will not forget Zachariah. Because of him, hopefully violent 
offenders will not only be deterred from hurting pregnant mothers, but 
from harming their unborn children.

                        One Victim . . . Or Two?

       My name is Tracy Scheide Marciniak.

[[Page H1635]]

       On February 8, 1992, I carried within my womb an unborn 
     baby boy, Zachariah. We were in our ninth month, only four 
     days from delivery.
       That night, the man to whom I was then married, Glendale R. 
     Black, brutally beat me. He knew that I very much wanted my 
     son. He punched me very hard twice in the abdomen. Then he 
     refused to call for help, and prevented me from doing so.
       When he relented, I was taken by ambulance to the hospital, 
     where Zachariah was delivered by emergency Caesarean section. 
     My son was dead. The physicians said he had bled to death 
     within my womb because of blunt-force trauma. I nearly died, 
     but I recovered.
       In 1992, Wisconsin, where the crime occurred, did not have 
     an unborn victims law, and state prosecutors were unable to 
     convict Glendale Black under a law that required them to 
     prove that the assault was intended to kill Zachariah. So, 
     Black was convicted of his assault on me, but not of any 
     charge that recognized the loss of Zachariah's life. He is 
     already eligible for parole.
       In 1998, in response to my case and others like it, the 
     Wisconsin Legislature overwhelming enacted one of the 
     nation's strongest unborn victims laws.
       But federal law still fails to recognize unborn victims, 
     like Zachariah. Even today, if Zachariah had been killed in 
     the same manner in a federal jurisdiction, his killer could 
     be prosecuted only for assault.
       That is wrong. Congress should approve the Unborn Victims 
     of Violence Act (H.R. 503, S. 480). Under this bill, if an 
     unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of an 
     already-defined federal crime of violence, that child will be 
     recognized as a victim.
       Opponents of the bill have put forth a counterproposal, 
     known as the Lofgren Amendment. I have read it, 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 on this: On the might of February 8, 1992, 
     there were two victims. I was nearly killed--but I survived. 
     Little Zachariah died.
       Any lawmaker who is thinking of voting for the Lofgren 
     ``one-victim'' amendment should first look at the 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. But please remember Zachariah's name and 
     face when you decide.''

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted in opposition to H.R. 503, 
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Since the landmark Roe v. Wade 
Supreme Court decision, Congress has slowly passed legislation that has 
eroded women's reproductive choices. This is a personal and private 
decision that should be made by a woman, her family, her physician, and 
her beliefs, not subjected to increasing levels of government 
interference.
  Rather than being merely a good faith effort to protect pregnant 
mothers from violence, the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act'' is 
actually a back door attempt to interject government into individuals 
private lives. 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. H.R. 503 would do nothing to add to the existing 
protections against these serious and prevalent crimes. 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. 
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 increase assistance to women in life threatening domestic 
situations.
  I did support the Lofgren Amendment that would have enacted strict 
punishments for crimes that result in the injury or death of the fetus 
with out the inclusion of constitutionally questionable language. If 
protecting pregnant women from violent crime were truly our priority, 
Congress would have passed this amendment to H.R. 503.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 503, 
legislation that does nothing to end violence against pregnant women 
but rather is a backdoor attempt to give a fetus the same legal status 
as the assaulted woman. Specifically, this measure affords a pregnancy 
at ``all stages of development'' legal rights that are equal to, and 
separate from, those of the woman. Though abortion is explicitly 
excluded from this bill, it clearly establishes new legal rights for 
the ``unborn child'' and would be a major step toward dismantling Roe 
v. Wade. The penalty would be equal to that imposed for injuring the 
woman herself and would apply from the earliest stage of gestation 
whether or not the perpetrator knew of the pregnancy.
  In recent days, advocates of H.R. 503 have bombarded us with bone-
chilling accounts of pregnant women being subject to heinous assaults. 
Clearly, no one in this body believes such acts of senseless violence 
should go unpunished. I strongly believe that violent crimes committed 
against women and in particular, pregnant women, should be punished to 
the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, we, as lawmakers, have a 
responsibility to ensure that Federal law properly addresses such 
violence. That being said, H.R. 503 does nothing to combat domestic 
violence. In fact, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence has 
come forward in opposition to H.R. 503, arguing that it would only 
divert the attention of the legal system away from violence against 
women. Unfortunately, this bill is a canard, a red herring, purporting 
to do one thing while actually accomplishing another.
  Mr. Speaker, rather than immersing this House in the theatrics of 
abortion politics, as the underlying bill does, Congress can make a 
difference in such heinous cases. The Lofgren substitute, known as the 
``Motherhood Protection Act'' would more effectively address the 
concern of violence against pregnant women, creating a separate Federal 
criminal offense for harm to a pregnant woman. Specifically, under the 
Lofgren substitute, assaults of women that compromise a pregnancy would 
be subject to a maximum 20-year sentence and, if the assault results in 
termination, could mean a life sentence. Thus, under this measure, 
assaults that result in injury or death of an ``unborn child'' would be 
subject to the same punishment provided under Federal law as for the 
violent act against the woman. These penalties would be in addition to 
any punishment imposed on the assailant for the underlying offense. The 
key difference between the Lofgren alternative and H.R. 503 is that it 
does not create a new legal status for the ``unborn child.''
  Mr. Speaker, the question at hand is what Federal law can do to 
address assaults on pregnant women. I am certain that my colleagues 
agree that such attacks should be punished to the fullest extent of the 
law. The penalties in the Lofgren substitute are equal to, and in some 
instances, actually stronger than, those in the underlying bill. 
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, let's put our difference on abortion aside 
and enact legislation that genuinely addresses harm to pregnant women 
and provides a deterrent to violence against women--the Motherhood 
Protection Act.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 503, 
the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I commend the Gentleman from South 
Carolina, Mr. Graham on this fine piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no greater joy than seeing your child for the 
first time. Personally, I would not trade that feeling for anything in 
the world.
  However, there is no greater pain than losing a child. I have seen 
the pain in the eyes of potential parents who have suffered the loss of 
their unborn children. Mr. Speaker, if you had ever seen the look in 
the eyes of those parents, then you would know that you would never 
want to feel that pain yourself. Especially, when the unborn child was 
lost due to an act of violence. Under current Federal and military 
laws, it is not a crime to end the life of an unborn child, regardless 
of the circumstances.
  Mr. Speaker, today this body will rise up and take a stand against 
this atrocity. Today, we will make this act of violence a felony and 
illegal under all Federal laws.
  I urge all of my colleagues to protect the lives of the unborn, and 
protect pregnant women by voting for H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of 
Violence Act.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, in the Minnesota State Legislature, I 
worked to secure health care for families, to fight against domestic 
violence, and to protect a woman's right to reproductive health 
choices. In the Minnesota State Legislature, we addressed the issue of 
violence against women in all stages of life--working with women, their 
families and doctors.
  I am particularly concerned about the legislation that we are 
considering today. It appears the intention of this legislation is to 
reverse the Supreme Court ruling of Roe versus Wade.
  Fundamentally, this legislation seeks to redefine when life begins. I 
support the landmark decision of Roe versus Wade in 1973 that 
establishes a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy while 
also allowing individual States to determine the legality of such 
decisions as a pregnancy proceeds.
  H.R. 503 fails to recognize that injury to a pregnancy is first and 
foremost an injury to a woman. This bill ignores the pregnant woman 
entirely, and would do nothing to stem violence against women. Crimes 
of this nature are more appropriately addressed by enhancing penalties 
for termination of, or injury to, a pregnancy.
  H.R. 503 is said to be protection for pregnant women against a 
violent crime. But the words ``mother,'' ``women,'' or ``pregnant 
women'' are not even mentioned in the language of the bill.

[[Page H1636]]

  I would proudly support a bill to prevent and punish the violent 
crimes against women and especially pregnant women. This bill does not 
address where and when these crimes most often occur or how to stop 
them.
  This bill does not help the 37 percent of women who need to receive 
emergency help because of assault by their husband or boyfriend? Where 
is the legislation in maintaining a restraining order when a woman 
flees to another State because her life is in danger?
  If we want to protect women and their children from violence, let us 
debate funding for domestic violence shelters and hotlines that are 
overrun by women in danger to broadly address where violence occurs.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lofgren substitute, which 
recognizes that when a violent crime is perpetrated against a pregnant 
woman and causes injury to or termination of her pregnancy, there is 
additional harm to that woman.
  Crimes committed against pregnant women are heinous and should be 
punished to the fullest extent. The Lofgren substitute actually 
provides harsher penalties on perpetrators of violent crimes against 
pregnant women than does H.R. 503.
  I strongly urge my colleagues not to jeopardize the decisions women 
can make about their own bodies and to vote no on H.R. 503 and yes on 
the Lofgren substitute.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided bill.
  Let me make something perfectly clear from the outset: The loss or 
harm to a woman and her fetus is absolutely devastating to the woman 
and her family. Those who injure or kill a pregnant woman and her fetus 
should be severely punished, and families should have the legal tools 
to have their loss recognized. We will offer a substitute that does 
that, and I believe that the Lofgren substitute demonstrates very 
clearly that there is a lot of common ground on this issue if we would 
only look for that instead of looking for ways to disagree.
  Having said that, let me explain why the approach this bill takes is 
just another thinly veiled attack on a woman's right to choose.
  This bill would give a fetus the same legal recognition as you or I--
for the first time in Federal law. Instead of addressing the real 
issues at hand--the horrible pain for a woman who loses a pregnancy to 
a cowardly, violent act--this bill is an ideological marker for the 
anti-choice special interests.
  Frankly, this bill is just another way of writing a Human Life 
Amendment. In fact, the National Right to Life Committee admits that it 
participated in the drafting of the bill, and according to the NRTL 
website, ``[t]he bill challenges that [pro-choice] ideology by 
recognizing the unborn child as a human victim, distinct from the 
mother.''

  If anti-choice members of this House want to recognize the fetus as a 
person--do that. Bring a Human Life Amendment to the floor and let us 
vote on it. But don't tell pregnant women in this country that you're 
trying to protect them with this bill when there are existing State and 
Federal laws to do that and when we are willing to join you in 
addressing the tragic cases when pregnant women are attacked. The 
American people are smarter than you're giving them credit for. They 
know that you're proposing a political statement today, not a real 
solution.
  If you really want to crack down on cowardly criminals who would 
attack a pregnant woman, support the Lofgren substitute. It gets us to 
the same ends, without the overtly political means. And if you're 
serious about protecting women in this country from violence, let's 
fully fund the Violence Against Women Act today.
  VAWA is the most effective way for us to help combat violence against 
women. Every year, over two million American women are physically 
abused by their husbands or boyfriends. A woman is physically abused 
every 15 seconds in this country. And one of every three abused 
children becomes an adult abuser or victim. The Unborn Victims of 
Violence Act will do nothing for these women. But VAWA makes all the 
difference in the world.

  My colleagues, please do not be fooled. The Unborn Victims of 
Violence Act is not about protecting pregnant women from violent acts. 
Rather, it is yet another anti-choice attempt to undermine a woman's 
right to choose.
  I have stood on the House floor many times and asked my colleagues to 
work with me to find ways to help women improve their health, plan 
their pregnancies, and have healthier children. It is tragic that every 
day over 400 babies are born to mothers who received little or no 
prenatal care, every minute a baby is born to a teen mother, and three 
babies die every hour. And it is tragic that 1 of every 3 women will 
experience domestic violence in her adulthood.
  Instead of finding new ways to revisit the divisive abortion battle, 
Americans want us to focus our efforts on providing women with access 
to prenatal care, affordable contraception, health education and 
violence prevention. If we truly want to protect women and their 
pregnancies from harm, then let us work together to enact legislation 
to help women have healthy babies and protect them from violent 
abusers.
  Please vote ``no'' on H.R. 503.
  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. 503, 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 tenth 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 non-person 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 our 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

[[Page H1637]]

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.
  Occasionally 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 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. 503 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. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 503, 
and I thank Representative Graham for introducing this legislation 
again in the 107th Congress. I am a cosponsor of this bill that makes 
killing a women's unborn child punishable as a Federal crime. The bill 
simply states that an individual who commits a Federal crime of 
violence against a pregnant woman and thereby causes death or injury to 
her unborn child will be held accountable for the harm caused to both 
victims, mother and child. Twenty-four States have already enacted laws 
which recognize unborn children as human victims of violent crimes--
this bill simply gives the same protection in Federal jurisdictions.
  Opponents of the bill have said that it is a back door to eliminating 
a women's right to choose, but this bill is about choice, Mr. Speaker, 
it is about respecting--and protecting--a women's choice to bring a new 
life into this world. H.R. 503 will allow under Federal law for the 
prosecutions of those who callously disregard that choice.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 503, The 
Unborn victims of Violence Act and want to thank my colleague from 
South Carolina for introducing it.
  As you know, H.R. 503 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. 24 States currently recognize both the mother 
and the unborn child as victims of violent crimes. And in 1999, this 
chamber passed this legislation by a vote of 254 to 172. However, it 
was never brought up for a vote in the Senate.
  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. Under 
her amendment, a criminal could receive a stiffer sentence for 
interfering with ``the normal course of the pregnancy'' while 
committing a Federal crime. The premise of this approach is that there 
has only been one victim, the mother, who has suffered a compound 
injury. However, if an expectant mother is shot and her baby is born 
disabled because of the bullet, would anyone say that only the mother 
and not the child had been injured. However, if the baby dies before 
being born, the supporters of the substitute amendment say only one 
person has suffered. This is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to submit for the Record a letter from 
the National Right to Life Committee in support of H.R. 503 and why the 
Lofgren Substitute should be defeated. I urge my colleagues to consider 
the points it raises.

                                            National Right to Life


                                               Committee, Inc.

                                   Washington, DC, April 23, 2001.

     RE: In opposition to ``one-victim'' substitute amendment to 
       the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503)

       Dear Member of Congress: As the House of Representatives 
     prepares to take up the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 
     503), the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) urges you 
     to reject the assertion of those who say that when a criminal 
     assaults a woman and kills her unborn child, nobody has 
     really died.
       That is the callous ideological doctrine embodied in the 
     substitute amendment that we anticipate will be offered to 
     H.R. 503 on the House floor (it was offered by Congresswomen 
     Lofgren in the Judiciary Committee, where it was rejected).
       The Unborn Victims of Violence Act creates no new federal 
     crimes. Rather, the bill would come into play only when 
     federal authorities have cause to arrest someone for an 
     offense against a woman in one of 68 already-defined federal 
     crimes of violence, by also allowing them to bring a second 
     charge if there has been a second victim, an unborn child. A 
     document circulated by the Planned Parenthood Federation of 
     America asserts that ``nowhere in the bill is harm against 
     women mentioned,'' but that is a blatantly misleading 
     statement. The bill really mentions harm against women 68 
     times, as it cites the 68 federal crimes of violence against 
     women in which H.R. 503 would apply.
       Under the Lofgren Substitute, a criminal could receive a 
     stiffer sentence for interfering with ``the normal course of 
     the pregnancy'' while committing a federal crime, but under 
     the premise that there has only been one victim, the mother, 
     who has suffered a compound injury. This approach is 
     incoherent. In those cases in which the woman dies in the 
     assault, is it not a duplicative charge to prosecute the 
     assailant both for killing the woman and for doing her an 
     additional injury? In other cases, in which the mother 
     survives but the baby dies, the Lofgren Substitute would 
     impose a penalty of life in prison--which seems a harsh 
     penalty, unless somebody has died.
       Consider the words of Tracy Marciniak of Wisconsin, who was 
     assaulted in the ninth month of her pregnancy. She was 
     injured and her unborn son, Zachariah, was killed. Because 
     Wisconsin at that time lacked an unborn victims law, the 
     assailant was convicted only for the injury he did to Mrs. 
     Marciniak, and he is already eligible for parole. Mrs. 
     Marciniak explains, ``This one-victim proposal is offensive 
     to me. Its premise is this: On the night my husband beat me, 
     nobody died. But that is not true. That night, there were two 
     victims. I was nearly killed--but I survived. Little 
     Zachariah died.'' Mrs. Marciniak urges House members to 
     look at the photo of her holding Zachariah in her arms at 
     his funeral, and asks, ``Can anybody honestly tell me 
     there is only one victim in that picture?'' (The photo is 
     posted at www.nrlc.org, and appears in NRLC ads that are 
     running various publications this week.)
       H.R. 503 explicitly states that nothing in the bill ``shall 
     be construed to permit the prosecution of any person for 
     conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the 
     pregnant woman . . . has been obtained.''

[[Page H1638]]

     Nor does the bill pertain to any action by a woman that 
     results in harm to her own unborn child. Moreover, the laws 
     of 24 states already recognize the ``unborn child'' as a 
     victim of violent crimes for all or some of the baby's period 
     of pre-natal development. These laws are listed at 
     www.nrlc.org/Whatsnew/sthomicidelaws.htm.
       Numerous state and federal courts have ruled that these 
     state unborn victims laws do not contradict Roe v. Wade or 
     otherwise affect legal abortion. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme 
     Court in 1989 found no problem with a Missouri law that 
     establishes the ``unborn child'' as a legal member of the 
     human family for purposes far broader than those covered by 
     the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Indeed, the April 21 
     issue of National Journal (page 1173) quotes Heather 
     Boonstra, senior public policy analyst at the Alan Guttmacher 
     Institute, as ``acknowledging that [Rep.] Graham's bill would 
     probably survive a court challenge.'' For further discussion 
     of the constitutional issues, see the Judiciary Committee 
     report at ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/cp107/hr042.txt.
       Some opponents of H.R. 503 have objected to the bill's 
     recognition of the ``child in utero'' as a member of the 
     human family. Yet, on July 25, 2000, the House by a vote of 
     417-0 passed a bill that contained the same definition of 
     ``child in utero'' and that embodied the same basic legal 
     principle. The roll call on that bill, and the text of the 
     bill, are appended.
       In NRLC's scorecard of significant congressional votes for 
     2001, a vote in favor of a one-victim substitute amendment to 
     H.R. 503 will be accurately described as a vote to declare 
     that when a criminal injures a mother and kills her unborn 
     child, there has been no loss of a human life. Thank your for 
     your consideration of NRLC's views on this legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Douglas Johnson,
       Legislative Director.
     Patricia Coll,
       Legislative Assistant.

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to 
H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
  H.R. 503 claims to protect unborn children from assault and murder by 
giving the fetus--at any stage of development from the time of 
fertilization--the status of a person under the law so that crimes 
resulting in the death of a ``child in utero'' can be charged 
separately. The bill does not address the violence against the mother 
that resulted in the harm to the fetus.
  The purpose of H.R. 503 is not to protect pregnant women from 
violence, it simply seeks to confer the same legal status to an embryo 
or fetus as to the woman who is pregnant. In fact, this act would give 
even a fertilized egg this status. H.R. 503 seeks to establish in law 
the principle of ``fetal rights'' that are equal to but distinct from 
the rights of pregnant women. The bill seeks to undercut Roe v. Wade, 
in which the Supreme Court held that at no stage of development are 
fetuses persons under the law.
  I wish that the Members of this body who so fervently want to 
overturn the right of women to a legal abortion would present an honest 
and straightforward bill to confer full personhood on an embryo or 
fetus. Let's take a vote on that.
  But we should not pretend that this bill is about protecting women 
from violence. If you want to protect pregnant women from violence, 
then it is important to address the problem of domestic violence by 
fully funding the Violence Against Women Act. The vast majority of 
attacks against pregnant women are domestic violence. In fact, this 
bill will only divert the attention of the legal system away from 
domestic violence or violence against women. The National Coalition 
Against Domestic Violence, which represents organizations and shelters 
in all 50 states, opposes this legislation.
  H.R. 503 ignores the fact that when harm comes to a pregnancy, it 
happens to the woman who is pregnant. The bill fails to address the 
need for strong federal legislation to prevent and punish violent 
crimes against women.
  If you want to provide for an enhanced penalty for attacks against 
women that result in harm to her pregnancy, then vote for the Lofgren 
amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 503 would undermine Roe v. Wade by 
recognizing for the first time in federal law a zygote, blastocyst, 
embryo, or fetus as a ``person,'' with rights equal to those of a 
woman. As a strong supporter of the Violence Against Women Act, I am 
concerned that the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act'' does not ensure 
that programs aimed at taking action against domestic violence are 
fully funded.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that violence against a 
pregnant woman, where harm is brought to not only the mother but also 
the fetus, is a most heinous offense. These acts of violence are tragic 
and should be recognized by increased federal penalties for those 
convicted of violence to a pregnant woman.
  To accomplish this goal, I will be supporting The Motherhood 
Protection Act, which creates a new, separate federal criminal offense 
for harm done to a pregnant woman. This bill provides for a maximum 
twenty year sentence for injury to a woman's pregnancy. Further, it 
provides a maximum life sentence for termination of a woman's 
pregnancy.
  The underlying Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503) and The 
Motherhood Protection Act achieve the exact same goal and provide 
identical penalties. The only difference is that H.R. 503 includes a 
legal definition of when life begins. However, medical experts and 
knowledgeable scientists are still debating this issue, and I don't 
believe Congress is in a position to make that determination today.
  Sadly, this serious issue has been turned into an abortion debate, 
which it is not. The goal of the sponsors of this legislation is to 
protect pregnant women and the unborn, and The Motherhood Protection 
Act, sponsored by Representative Zoe Lofgren, accomplishes this 
purpose. The Motherhood Protection Act has my full support.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague on 
the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Graham, for bringing this very important 
legislation before the House. I commend you for your extraordinary 
efforts on behalf of the unborn victims of violence.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act 
which promotes justice by holding violent criminals accountable for 
their conduct. 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?
  Approximately half of the 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 provide a 
gap in the law that usually allows the criminal to walk away with 
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.
  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 replace a child lost to 
violence. However, we can ensure that justice is done by making the 
criminals who take the life of an unborn child pay for their actions.
  When a mother chooses to bring a life into this world and that life 
is cut short by a violent criminal, that criminal should be held 
accountable under the law. Justice demands it, and so should we. I urge 
each of my colleagues to join me in voting for the Unborn Victims of 
Violence Act.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 503, the 
Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
  I oppose this legislation because of its implications for the future 
of a woman's right to lawfully terminate a pregnancy, not because I 
oppose punishing crimes against pregnant women--or anyone else--to the 
full extent of the law.
  Don't be fooled, this bill is an attack on the fundamental principles 
of Roe v. Wade. H.R. 503 would establish a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, 
and fetus as a person under federal law. Although the Supreme Court has 
held that fetuses are not persons under the 14th amendment, this bill 
would bestow separate rights to the fetus equal to that of the mother.
  The Lofgren substitute, on the other hand, creates a separate 
criminal offense for harm to a pregnant woman, while maintaining the 
woman as the primary victim of the crime. It also creates an offense 
for violence resulting in the injury or termination of a pregnancy.
  I urge my fellow colleagues to oppose H.R. 503 and to support the 
Lofgren substitute. H.R. 503 dislodges the cornerstone underpinning Roe 
v. Wade. In contrast, the Lofgren substitute strengthens punishments 
for crimes against pregnant women without weakening a woman's right to 
choose.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the Democratic Chair of the 
Pro-Life Caucus, to express my strong support for the Unborn Victims of 
Violence Act and to dispel some of the myths we've heard about it from 
those who are opposed to this commonsense, anticrime legislation.
  In recent years, 28 States have passed laws similar to the Unborn 
Victims of Violence Act, allowing criminals who assault pregnant 
mothers to be prosecuted for injuring or murdering the unborn child 
during the attack. Unfortunately, under current Federal law, the 
criminal faces no such consequences.
  We have all heard the tragic stories told here today, stories of 
brutal assaults on pregnant mothers which resulted in the deaths of

[[Page H1639]]

their unborn children. These violent acts went unprosecuted and 
unpunished. For the sake of these women and their unborn children, 
Congress must correct this oversight in Federal law and pass the Unborn 
Victims of Violence Act. It is pro-woman, pro-child, and anti-criminal.
  This bill and its goal seem pretty straightforward. How could anyone 
oppose it? After all, every Member of this body wants to protect women 
and children, and punish criminals. Well, Mr. Speaker, it appears that 
we have a simple misunderstanding about what this bill actually does 
and I want to take a moment to set the record straight.
  Some of my colleagues are concerned that The Unborn Victims of 
Violence Act prevents women from obtaining a legal abortion. This 
assertion is simply not true. The Unborn Victims legislation 
specifically prohibits the prosecution of women who terminate their 
pregnancies through abortion. While I am pro-Life and therefore very 
much opposed to abortion, I want to make it clear that this legislation 
has absolutely no impact on a woman's legal ability to terminate her 
pregnancy. This is not an abortion bill. It is a crime bill.
  Others in this body are concerned that the act undermines the Roe v. 
Wade decision by recognizing unborn children as having rights outside 
of the mother. In fact, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act has zero 
impact on Roe v. Wade, because the Supreme Court has stated that unborn 
children already have legal rights outside the mother, specifically in 
tort and inheritance cases, and these rights do not preclude a woman 
from obtaining an abortion. This is not a bill which restricts 
abortion. It is a bill that punishes criminals who commit brutal acts 
of violence against women and their children.
  Finally, we have heard from some who honestly believe that this act 
is somehow antiwoman. Mr. Speaker, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act 
not only reinforces existing laws which protect women against violence, 
but also ensures that the horrible emotional and physical anguish a 
pregnant woman would suffer from the death of her unborn child would 
not go unpunished due to a loophole in the law. It is hard for me to 
find any legislation which is more pro-woman than this.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this 
important pro-woman, pro-child and anticriminal legislation, and vote 
in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I submit to the Congressional Record, and 
commend to my colleagues, the following document from the National 
Right to Life Committee. It provides important details on H.R. 503, the 
Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

            Key Points on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act

       The Unborn Victims of Violence Act has been introduced in 
     companion bills as H.R. 503, sponsored by Congressman Lindsey 
     Graham (R-SC), and S. 480, sponsored by Senator Mike DeWine 
     (R-Ohio). The full text is available at the NRLC website at 
     www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/index.html.
       The Unborn Victims of Violence Act 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. The bill would recognize 
     that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or 
     kills her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims. The 
     bill would apply this two-victim principle to about 70 
     existing federal laws dealing with acts of violence. These 
     laws affect federal geographical jurisdictions, the military 
     justice system, protection of federal officials, and specific 
     acts defined by law as federal crimes (such as certain 
     terrorist bombings).
       In current federal criminal law, an unborn child is not 
     recognized as a victim with respect to violent crimes. Thus, 
     for example, if a criminal beats a woman on a military base, 
     and kills her unborn child, he can be charged only with the 
     battery against the woman, because the unborn child's loss of 
     life is not recognized by the law. This gap in federal law 
     results in grave injustices, some real-world examples of 
     which were described by former Congressman Charles Canady (R-
     Fl.) at a July 21, 1999 House Judiciary Constitution 
     Subcommittee hearing on the issue. Congressman Canady's 
     statement is posted at http://nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL899/
cana.html.
       Twenty-four (24) states have already enacted laws which 
     recognize unborn children as human victims of violent crimes. 
     Eleven (11) of these states provide this protection 
     throughout the period of in utero development, while the 
     other 13 provide protection during specific stages of 
     development. For detailed information on state unborn victims 
     laws, see ``State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn 
     Victims,'' available at www.nrlc.org/Whatsnew/
sthomicidelaws.htm. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act 
     would not supersede state unborn victims laws, nor would 
     it impose such a law in a state that has not enacted one. 
     Rather, the bill applies only to unborn children injured 
     or killed during the course of already-defined federal 
     crimes of violence.
       The bill explicitly provides that it does not apply to any 
     abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the 
     mother herself (legal or illegal), or to any form of medical 
     treatment. Nevertheless, NRLC supports the bill because it 
     achieves other pro-life purposes that are worthwhile in their 
     own right: the protection of unborn children from acts of 
     violence other than abortion, the recognition that unborn 
     children may be victims of such violent criminal acts, and 
     the punishment of those who harm unborn children while 
     engaged in federally prohibited acts of violence.
       It is well established that this type of legislation does 
     not conflict with the Supreme Court's pro-abortion decrees 
     (Roe v. Wade, etc.). Criminal defendants have brought many 
     legal challenges to the state unborn victim laws mentioned 
     above, based on Roe and other constitutional arguments, but 
     all such challenges have been rejected by the courts. (A list 
     of pertinent court decisions is available on request.)
       Moreover, in the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive 
     Health Services, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to invalidate 
     a Missouri statute that declares that ``the life of each 
     human being beings at conception,'' that ``unborn children 
     have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being,'' 
     and that all state laws ``shall be interpreted and construed 
     to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage 
     of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities 
     available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this 
     state,'' to the extent permitted by the Constitution and U.S. 
     Supreme Court rulings. A lower court had held that Missouri's 
     law ``impermissibl[y]'' adopted ``a theory of when life 
     begins,'' but the Supreme Court nullified this ruling, and 
     held that a state is free to enact laws that recognize unborn 
     children, so long as the state does not include restrictions 
     on abortion that Roe forbids. The Minnesota Supreme Court 
     took the same view in upholding the Minnesota law: ``Roe v. 
     Wade . . . does not protect, much less confer on an 
     assailant, a third-party unilateral right to destroy the 
     fetus.'' [State v. Merrill, 450 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1990)].
       Some opponents have objected to the bill's recognition of 
     the ``child in utero'' as a member of the human family who 
     can be harmed in a crime. Yet, on July 25, 2000, the House 
     passed on a vote of 417-0 a bill that contained the same 
     definition of ``child in utero'' and that embodied the same 
     basic legal principle. That bill, the Innocent Child 
     Protection Act, said that no state or federal authority 
     may ``carry out a sentence of death on a woman while she 
     carries a child in utero. . . . `child in utero' means a 
     member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of 
     development, who is carried in the womb.'' The principle 
     embodied in the Innocent Child Protection Act was obvious. 
     Whatever one's position regarding the morality of capital 
     punishment as such, there is only one rational reason for 
     delaying a lawfully ordered execution of a woman because 
     she is pregnant--that is, carrying out the execution would 
     take two human lives, not just one. The Unborn Victims of 
     Violence Act would extend that same principle to the rest 
     of the federal criminal code, recognizing that when a 
     criminal attacks a woman, injuring or killing her and 
     injuring or killing her unborn child, he has claimed two 
     victims.
       The Unborn Victims of Violence Act has come under vehement 
     attack from pro-abortion groups such as NARAL, Planned 
     Parenthood, and the ACLU. Even though the bill deals with 
     acts of violence other than abortion, the pro-abortion 
     lobby's ideology apparently compels it to deny the very 
     existence of unborn human beings in any area of the law. 
     Thus, during the 106th Congress, pro-abortion lawmakers 
     proposed alternative legislation, the ``Motherhood Protection 
     Act'' or Lofgren substitute amendment, which the House of 
     Representatives rejected on September 30, 1999. This ``one-
     victim'' proposal did not mention the unborn child (by 
     whatever name), but instead defined as an offense 
     ``interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy.'' This 
     approach would have codified a falsehood--the notion that 
     there is only one victim in these crimes. In the real world, 
     however, when an unborn child loses her life in a criminal 
     attack, the parents and society mourn the death of a separate 
     individual, rather than viewing it simply as an additional 
     injury to the mother.
       Moreover, arguments in favor of the one-victim proposal are 
     internally inconsistent and illogical. Supporters of the one-
     victim approach insist that when a criminal injures a mother 
     and kills her unborn child, there has been only a compound 
     injury to the mother but no loss of any human life--yet, the 
     Lofgren Amendment would have imposed a penalty (up to life in 
     prison) commensurate with loss of human life. Also, advocates 
     of the one-victim approach argue that when a criminal 
     assailant kills a pregnant woman, the assailant should 
     receive double punishment: once for killing the mother and 
     then again for depriving her of her ``pregnancy''--but if 
     there is only one victim, it is difficult to see why this 
     would not be a duplicative criminal charge, since legally 
     speaking a woman who has been murdered cannot herself suffer 
     an additional ``loss.''
       Some opponents of the bill have charged that the bill would 
     punish harm to the unborn child ``utterly ignoring the harm 
     to the pregnant woman.'' Others have charged that the bill 
     would ``separate the mother from her fetus.'' These 
     objections reflect misunderstandings or misrepresentations of 
     how the bill is structured. In reality, the bill would

[[Page H1640]]

     allow the government to win a conviction for harm to an 
     unborn child only if it first proves that the defendant 
     violated one of the 70 or so enumerated federal laws with 
     respect to the mother.
       Some opponents of the bill have charged that it would allow 
     defendants to be convicted without a showing of intent to do 
     harm. This is false. Under the bill, it is necessary to prove 
     beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had intent to do 
     criminal harm, at least towards the mother. If such criminal 
     intent towards the mother is proved, then the defendant also 
     will be held responsible for the harm done to the unborn 
     baby, under the doctrine of ``transferred intent.'' As the 
     House Judiciary Committee report (106th Congress) explained, 
     transferred intent is a well-established principle in the 
     law. (If a man shoots at a woman with intent to kill, and the 
     bullet misses her, passes through a wall, and kills a child 
     who the shooter did not know was there, he can be convicted 
     of the murder of the child.) As the Minnesota Supreme Court 
     ruled in upholding the Minnesota unborn victims law, ``The 
     possibility that a female homicide victim of childbearing age 
     may be pregnant is a possibility that an assaulter may not 
     safely exclude.'' [State v. Merrill, 450 N.W. 2d 318 (Minn. 
     1990)].
       In order to win a conviction under the bill, it would be 
     necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable 
     doubt that a human being (1) already existed, and (2) was 
     ``carried in the womb,'' which would be utterly impossible 
     until after the embryo had implanted in the womb and sent out 
     the chemical signals that announced his or her presence 
     (i.e., after implantation). Moreover, even after the 
     prosecution has met that burden, it must also prove beyond a 
     reasonable doubt that a defendant's criminal conduct caused 
     the death of the child in utero. The mere possibility or even 
     the strong likelihood that a defendant's criminal conduct 
     caused a baby's death would not suffice--the bill requires 
     proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
       National Right to Life legislative staff are available to 
     discuss this issue with journalists and congressional 
     offices. Please call (202) 626-8820, or e-mail to: 
     Legfederal@aol.com. Extensive additional information on the 
     federal bill and on state unborn victims laws is available at 
     the NRLC website at www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/index.html.


     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 (Mr. LaTourette). 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 
     2001''.

     SEC. 2. CRIMES AGAINST A WOMAN--TERMINATING 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), 
     934(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 119, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and a Member opposed 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.
  This debate this morning has been interesting, but I think it is 
clear, and we need to be honest about it, that the debate and the 
underlying bill is about choice and it is about Roe v. Wade. That is 
why the National Right to Life Committee has vigorously lobbied for 
H.R. 503 and why the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence has 
lobbied actively against 503.
  What we are doing here today is offering a substitute that we hope 
can bring both sides of the choice to come together in unity to protect 
pregnant women from violent assault when that assault injures or 
terminates their pregnancy.
  The Lofgren-Conyers substitute does not threaten Roe v. Wade as the 
underlying bill does. I have heard a lot of the arguments made here 
this morning, but I think it is worth pointing out that redefining 
personhood legislatively for the purposes of the 14th amendment in this 
criminal statute may have the impact of allowing, even though certain 
activities are carved out of the bill, for prosecutorial purposes, it 
does not deal with civil actions.
  Clearly the bill could outline the ability for guardians to be 
appointed for fetuses or even zygotes, and that civil action and 
injunctions could be based upon this bill. The Lofgren-Conyers 
substitute does not do that. We do not needlessly inject the abortion 
debate into the matter of criminal justice. This bill focuses on the 
harm to the pregnant woman and provides, we hope, a deterrence of 
violence against women and provides very tough penalties when that 
violence results in injury to the fetus or a miscarriage.
  This bill is tougher, this substitute is tougher than the underlying 
bill; and I will give my colleagues just an example of how that would 
work. Each of the measures, both the underlying bill and the 
substitute, recites various Federal criminal laws as jurisdictional 
offenses. One of the sections, one of the predicate offenses is section 
248 of Title 18, which provides for a scheme to deter violence against 
women and others who are entering clinics, health clinics.
  Now, in my part of California, Planned Parenthood provides extensive 
health care services. They provide prenatal care, pediatric care, and 
the like. If a pregnant woman is trying to enter the Planned Parenthood 
clinic through the protesters in San Jose to get her prenatal care and 
is assaulted by one of the protesters and miscarries, under the H.R. 
503, there would need to be proven an intent to cause that miscarriage 
or in the language of the bill kill the unborn child.
  Under the Lofgren substitute, no such requirement is in place. If a 
miscarriage occurred, the full sentence of up to a life sentence could 
be imposed. In the case of the underlying bill, the maximum sentence 
that could be imposed without proving intent, which is very difficult 
to do, would be 1 year or, if bodily injury was not afflicted on the 
woman, it would be 10 years.
  So we have a difference really with the substitute providing up to a 
life sentence and the underlying bill merely 1 or 10 years. I think 
that those of us who want to give a strong message to those who would 
assault women would prefer the life sentence.
  This is stronger as well because it is constitutional unlike the 
underlying bill. I recently reread Roe v. Wade, something that I think 
all of us should do from time to time. Some of us had not read it since 
law school. It was good to be reminded in the language of the Justices, 
their consideration, first of the personhood of the fetus, but also the 
discussion of what can be regulated and when.
  Clearly, and we all know this as people, the horrible situation of 
the woman who was assaulted, and she was 4 days away from delivery, and 
I do not want to get into the personhood argument, but she could have 
induced labor. She lost her child in my view, and that was a tragedy. 
Our bill would protect that. But it also protects something else. If 
one is 6 weeks pregnant, the substitute that we are offering provides 
the same level of protection as the poor woman who was assaulted in the 
picture that has been used several times today.

[[Page H1641]]

                              {time}  1300

  Why is that? Those of us who have experienced a miscarriage 
understand this very essential truth. If a woman miscarries, whether it 
be from assault or from some other reason, that woman has lost one of 
life's great, great opportunities. A miscarriage is something that a 
woman never forgets, and it is a major life blow. Whether the woman is 
6 weeks pregnant or 6 months pregnant, that loss is acutely felt by 
women who want to have a child, and it deserves the full penalty that 
the law can provide and up to a life sentence.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can come together on this substitute. 
Last Congress there were a number of Members of this House who are 
anti-choice who voted for the substitute, understanding that the 
penalties are indeed more severe and it would provide complete 
protection. I urge those individuals to do so again.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Does the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) claim the time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. CHABOT. I do, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the former chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary and the current chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  (Mr. Hyde asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, John Quincy Adams, in a famous summation to 
the Supreme Court in 1841, spoke on behalf of 35 Africans he 
represented in the historic Amistad case involving that slave ship. 
Adams told the Supreme Court they would not have a more important case 
before them because this concerns the very nature of man.
  Mr. Speaker, today we confront the same issue only today it is the 
unborn whose humanity is being threatened, not the slaves. The question 
we are faced with is whether a preborn child has value; value 
sufficient to warrant protection in the law from a criminal assault, or 
whether the tiny, unborn infant is beneath protection, without value, 
without standing, without significance. Whether this little unborn is 
merely a randomly multiplying bunch of cells, a sort of tumor, like 
Shakespeare's sound and fury, signifying nothing.
  A famous novelist, Saul Bellow, once wrote, ``A great deal of energy 
can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is great.'' To 
rationalize the divesting of the little battered body of the unborn 
child, divest it of its humanity, its membership in the human family, 
is the ultimate indignity. My colleagues will not even call him a 
victim.
  In the endless debate on abortion, the term ``extremist'' is hurled 
across the aisle. I cannot imagine a more extreme posture than to deny 
the humanity of the unborn. If you hold the view that the unborn child 
is without value, you have to explain why this House on July 25, 2000 
voted 417 to zero to forbid the execution of a woman while she carries 
a child in utero. That pregnancy must have meant something. So the fact 
of a pregnancy makes a difference.
  An obstetrician treats two patients when he treats a pregnant woman. 
Specialists perform fetal surgery of incredible complexity, heart 
surgery, spina bifida, exchange transfusions, all sorts of surgery to 
save that baby. How many times has a young couple exhibited proudly 
pictures of the sonogram? Tell these prospective parents their unborn 
child is without value.
  Mr. Speaker, the Lofgren substitute dehumanizes the child in the 
womb. It echoes a line from a New York Times editorial yesterday, which 
cannot bring itself to describe the assault that kills a mother's child 
in the womb as anything more than ``compromising a pregnancy.'' Have 
you ever heard a colder phrase describing the death from violence in 
the womb than ``compromising a pregnancy.'' That is like saying a drug 
dealer is an unlicensed pharmacist or a bank robber is a holder not in 
due course.
  Listen to the words of a famous obstetrician, Dr. Joseph DeLee, who 
wrote in the Yearbook of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1940 as the world 
was about to be plunged into a bloody war, ``At the present time when 
rivers of blood and tears of innocent men, women and children are 
flowing in most parts of the world, it seems almost silly to be 
contending over the right to live of an unknowable atom of human flesh 
in the uterus of a woman. No, it is not silly. On the contrary, it is 
of transcendent importance that there be in this chaotic world one high 
spot, however small, which is safe against the deluge of immorality and 
savagery that is sweeping over us. That we, the medical profession, 
hold to the principle of the sacredness of human life and of the rights 
of the individual, even though unborn, is proof that humanity is not 
yet lost.''
  The need for illusion is too great to justify weeding out of the 
human race the unborn. A pregnancy has not been compromised. A baby has 
been killed. In the words of Willy Loman's wife, Linda, in ``Death of a 
Salesman,'' ``Attention must be paid.'' Support Graham, defeat Lofgren.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note for the House Chamber, 
I am here with my daughter-for-the-day, Laura Wasserman, who is sitting 
next to me, who is taking the place today for my four wanted children.
  Mr. Speaker, I have borne children. I have also suffered a 
miscarriage; and I would like to say to the gentleman (Mr. Hyde) who 
just spoke before me who talked in terms of the Lofgren amendment 
dehumanizing the child, that the underlying bill dehumanizes the woman 
bearing the child, and I think that point needs to be noticed. We are 
talking about unborn children, and I take that very seriously. We are 
also talking about pregnant women who are bearing those fetuses that 
are about to become children. Mr. Speaker, I think attention must be 
paid to the mothers.
  I rise in support of the amendment offered today by my friend and 
colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), which creates 
a separate Federal criminal offense for harm to a pregnant woman and 
specifically punishes violence against her resulting in injury to or 
the termination of a pregnancy.
  If we are trying to protect pregnant women, let us protect them. Let 
us not insult the intelligence of women in this country by attacking 
their rights under the guise of protecting their unborn fetuses.
  Mr. Speaker, I have read Roe v. Wade. It was a decision of the 
Supreme Court after I was a practicing lawyer. I knew Harry Blackmun, 
the late Justice Blackmun, who drafted Roe v. Wade and whose experience 
in this area came from his being general counsel to the Mayo Clinic. He 
carefully defined a framework in that decision that includes a 
definition of viability of the fetus. The underlying bill here would 
interfere with that definition and undercut Roe v. Wade.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this amendment and rise in opposition 
to the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 503, the 
Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Once again, opponents of choice are 
making an attempt to interfere with a woman's right to choose.
  Supporters of H.R. 503 claim it increases punishments for individuals 
who commit violence against pregnant women. They claim it will help 
protect these women--however, the protection of the pregnant woman is 
never mentioned in the text of this bill.
  Instead, the bill defines an unborn fetus as a person against whom a 
crime can be committed. It creates ``fetal rights.'' Congress should 
not be involved in defining when life begins nor should it create 
``rights'' for which we do not know the full repercussions.
  I strongly support the alternative offered by my friend and colleague 
Zoe Lofgren, which creates a separate federal criminal offense for harm 
to a pregnant woman and specifically punishes violence against her 
resulting in injury or the termination of a pregnancy. If we are trying 
to protect pregnant women, then let's protect them. Let's not insult 
the intelligence of women in this country by attacking their rights 
under the guise of protecting their unborn fetuses.
  Roe v. Wade establishes a careful framework which includes a 
definition of viability of the fetus. H.R. 503 is a backdoor attempt to

[[Page H1642]]

weaken Roe v. Wade and interfere with a woman's right to make her own 
reproductive choices.
  Mr. Speaker, let's respect the women of this country. Let's not 
undermine a woman's Constitutional right to choose. Vote no on H.R. 
503!


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that 
making reference to persons on the floor who are not Members of the 
House is not appropriate.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Lofgren substitute amendment would provide an 
enhanced sentence for a violent crime that causes an interruption to 
the normal course of the pregnancy resulting in prenatal injury, 
including termination of the pregnancy. This substitute clearly must be 
opposed.
  First, the substitute ignores the injuries inflicted by violent 
criminals upon the unborn. It appears to operate as a sentencing 
enhancement. A sentencing enhancement is when you get attacked and the 
attacker throws you down and hurts your arm, your leg and your back, 
too. The attacker's penalties gets enhanced by the additional penalties 
done to the victim. But I challenge anyone to sit back and reflect on 
the loss they would feel if they were a pregnant woman who lost her 
unborn child or a relative of that woman. Would the loss felt be the 
same as the loss of an appendix or pancreas? I think not. Would you 
feel the same regret you felt for a bone if a bone were broken or a 
slipped disk in one's back? Surely not.
  The loss that a person would feel would be a distinct and a unique 
loss, and the criminal law should appropriately reflect that loss in a 
separate offense protecting the unborn children. It is our goal to 
protect them and the mothers in this instance. The law does not simply 
punish criminals. The law, and especially criminal law, embodies the 
judgment of civilized society. As such it must credibly and fully 
respect and reflect the magnitude of the loss felt when a woman loses 
her unborn child to violence. This can only be done by creating a 
separate offense to protect the separate unborn person.
  Second, the substitute is hopelessly ambiguous. So ambiguous that it 
puts in jeopardy the prosecution of any criminal for violence against 
the unborn. The confusing verbiage in the substitute amendment is 
incomprehensible; and if adopted, it will almost certainly doom any 
prosecution for injuring or killing 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 and 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 is the difference between an interruption of a pregnancy and an 
interruption that terminates the pregnancy? Does not any interruption 
of a pregnancy necessarily result in a termination of the pregnancy; or 
have supporters of the substitute managed to find a way to place a 
developing human being in some sort of suspended animation.
  Mr. Speaker, what does the phrase ``termination of pregnancy'' mean. 
Does it mean only that the unborn child died, or could it mean that the 
child was just born prematurely without suffering any injuries.
  These ambiguities make the substitute almost impossible to make any 
sense of. But maybe this is not what the substitute does. It is so 
ambiguous that it admits of several readings. It is more like a bowl of 
tea leaves.
  Subsection 2(a) of the substitute amendment appears to operate as a 
mere sentence enhancement authorizing punishment in addition to any 
penalty imposed for the predicate offense. Yet the language of 
subsection 2(b) describes the additional punishment provided in 
subsection 2(a) as punishment for a violation of subsection (a), 
suggesting that subsection 2(a) creates a separate offense for killing 
or injuring an unborn child. Which is it? What is going on here? Let us 
not support a substitute that is more like a Magic 8-Ball.
  This ambiguity is magnified by the fact that subsection 2(a) requires 
that the conduct injuring or killing an unborn child ``result in the 
conviction of the person so engaging.'' So does this indicate a 
conviction must be obtained before the defendant may be charged with a 
violation of subsection 2(a); or does it mean that the additional 
punishment must be imposed at the trial for the predicate offense, so 
long as it is imposed after the jury convicts based on the predicate 
offense.
  Mr. Speaker, is a separate charge necessary for the enhanced penalty 
to be imposed? The substitute amendment simply makes no sense except 
perhaps to criminals who will understand its significance crystal 
clear. They get away with the heinous crime.
  Unlike the current language of the bill, the substitute stunningly 
contains no exemptions for abortion-related conduct, for conduct of the 
mother, or for the medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her 
unborn child. This omission leaves the substitute amendment open to the 
charge that it would permit the prosecution of mothers who inflict harm 
upon themselves or their unborn children, or doctors who kill or injure 
unborn children during the provision of medical treatment. This 
substitute as written is a magnet for a constitutional challenge.

                              {time}  1315

  The substitute amendment also appears to mischaracterize the nature 
of the injury that is inflicted when an unborn child is killed or 
injured during the commission of a violent crime. Under the current 
language of the bill, a separate offense is committed whenever an 
individual causes a death or a bodily injury to a child who is in utero 
at the time the conduct takes place.
  The substitute amendment seems to transform the death of the unborn 
child into the abstraction ``terminating a pregnancy.'' ``Bodily 
injury'' inflicted upon the unborn child appears to become ``prenatal 
injury.'' Both injuries are described as resulting from an 
``interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy.''
  These abstractions ignore the fact that the death of an unborn child 
occurs whenever a pregnancy is violently ``terminated'' by a criminal. 
They also fail to recognize that a ``prenatal injury'' is an injury 
inflicted upon a real human being in the womb of his or her mother.
  For example, if an assault is committed, for example, on a Federal 
employee, 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 a human 
being. Our bill recognizes that. The substitute does not. The 
substitute is thus fatally flawed and must be rejected.
  The substitute amendment is so poorly drafted and ambiguous that 
obtaining a conviction of a violent criminal under it will be almost 
impossible. The substitute amendment is also subject to constitutional 
attack because it contains no exemption for abortion-related conduct, 
for conduct of the woman, or for medical treatment. And finally the 
substitute amendment ignores the injuries inflicted by violent 
criminals upon unborn children, transforming those injuries into mere 
abstractions.
  For these reasons, the substitute amendment should be rejected.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just note that the gentleman's analysis, I thought, was both 
confused and confusing. The bill is well-drafted. The reason why there 
is no carve-out for abortion is that so far abortion is not a crime in 
America. The bill is based on criminal conduct in the code.
  Finally, I would just note that the gentleman may not know what a 
miscarriage is, but those of us who have had one do understand it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my wholehearted support 
for the Lofgren amendment and strong opposition to the underlying bill 
without that amendment. We must be clear on one thing. H.R. 503, the 
underlying bill,

[[Page H1643]]

is a sneak attack on Roe v. Wade, and there is no question whether it 
would threaten a woman's right to reproductive choice. At the same 
time, this bill does nothing to address the real need for Federal 
measures to prevent and prosecute violent crimes against women.
  Mr. Speaker, we all agree that the loss of a pregnancy through 
violence to a woman is a tragedy for the woman and for her family. That 
is why I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lofgren amendment. The 
Lofgren amendment recognizes that a crime causing the end of a 
pregnancy is a crime against the woman. If my colleagues truly care 
about women and children, vote for the Lofgren amendment and vote no on 
H.R. 503 if the amendment is not included.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of holding criminals accountable 
for their actions that affect the unborn. The Unborn Victims of 
Violence Act represents a much-needed clarification of current Federal 
code to protect preborn children from violent crime.
  Last year, the House voted 415-0 in favor of the Innocent Child 
Protection Act. That act prevents any U.S. authority from carrying out 
a death sentence on a pregnant woman. There is no difference between 
the rationale of that bill and this one. If you believe in protecting 
an innocent, preborn child when the criminal mother is to be executed, 
you should agree that we must protect an innocent, preborn child when 
its innocent mother is attacked.
  This bill supports women who want to carry a child to term, and it 
gives law enforcement the right to penalize someone who criminally 
interferes with her ability to do so. This bill is pro-choice, if you 
will. The choice in this case has already been made by the mother to 
keep the child, and when a criminal act takes away that woman's choice, 
there should be legal remedies to mete out punishment for that crime.
  I urge my colleagues to protect the rights of the unborn and all 
mothers who have chosen to carry a child to term. Support H.R. 503 and 
reject the substitute.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the Lofgren amendment.
  I would like to point out to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Largent) that actually I want to hold criminals accountable for crimes 
against pregnant women. Twenty-four States have higher penalties for 
assault of a pregnant woman and, in Connecticut, for assault of an 
elderly person. That is right and justified. If that is what this bill, 
the underlying bill, did, I would strongly support it. It is what the 
amendment does and that is why I support the amendment.
  The amendment imposes much higher penalties, even up to the death 
sentence, on people who assault a woman who is pregnant. But it does 
something else.
  I do find it almost unbelievable that my conservative colleagues 
would advocate such a radical piece of legislation. This legislation is 
truly extraordinary, because it changes the fundamental concept of law 
that has governed America since its founding. What is radical about 
this bill is not that it wants to punish people who assault pregnant 
women; I want to do that, too. What is radical about this bill is that 
for the first time under our laws, it will define fetal personhood. The 
consequences are going to be extraordinary.
  What happens if a woman has a miscarriage because she worked too 
hard, she stayed up late, she drove herself, she did not take care of 
herself, and she has a miscarriage? Is she going to be a murderer? That 
may not be in this bill, but let me tell you, it is the next one down 
the road. What if, for good reason, for health reasons, she has to have 
an abortion? What if the doctor says, you will not survive if you do 
not have an abortion? Is the doctor then a murderer?
  That is the underlying goal of this bill. Do not hide it from 
yourself. If you vote for it, know that you are voting for a radical 
change in the American legal statutes.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, when a woman and a child are assaulted or, 
even more seriously than that, the child is killed, there are two 
victims. The problem currently with our law is that we only recognize 
one of those victims. That is the purpose of H.R. 503 and that is the 
problem with the substitute. It fails to recognize one of the victims.
  The gentlewoman before me made reference to the foundational 
principles of this country. What is it that is unique, that defines 
America? Why is America a different nation than other nations? Why is 
it that people have chosen to immigrate here? I would suggest that a 
great deal of our unique character is found in a sentence that says, 
``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by 
their Creator with certain inalienable rights.'' That is the purpose of 
our law, to create equal protection, because each life is important to 
us. That is a foundational American principle, and it is not currently 
in our law.
  That is the purpose of H.R. 503. This substitute does not protect one 
of the victims of potential crimes, and that is the problem with the 
substitute.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote against the substitute and to 
support the very foundational principle that America is based on, that 
all people deserve the protection of law.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership 
on this and so many other issues important to women.
  Mr. Speaker, today in this Chamber we rise again to protect a woman's 
right to choose. Yes, once again. This full-scale assault on a woman's 
right to choose is dangerous and it is wrong. As a woman, I am deeply 
offended and angry.
  First, President Bush reinstitutes the global gag rule as one of his 
very first actions in office. And now we have the Unborn Victims of 
Violence Act before us today. Where is the compassion for women?
  I deplore acts of violence against women and stand as a strong 
advocate against domestic violence and domestic abuse. However, while 
this legislation claims to protect pregnant women, the reality is that 
it will harm women. H.R. 503 represents a direct attack on the Supreme 
Court ruling of Roe v. Wade, and therefore a woman's constitutional 
right to reproductive freedom. The National Coalition Against Domestic 
Violence has indicated that H.R. 503 would actually worsen the plight 
of women in domestic violence situations.
  This substitute offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is equally tough 
on crimes against women without weakening our reproductive freedom. The 
substitute recognizes the pregnant woman as the primary victim of a 
crime. However, it also allows for further punishment if that woman's 
pregnancy is ended as a result of the attack.
  If Congress wants to ensure safe pregnancies for both mothers and 
babies, we should be passing legislation to increase access to prenatal 
care and to support and strengthen WIC nutrition programs and food 
stamp programs. But, instead, we are once again forced to speak out to 
defend women's fundamental rights.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize H.R. 503 for what it is, a 
misguided initiative, dangerous and harmful to women. I urge a no vote 
on H.R. 503 and support of this substitute.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, we have once again heard this described as an assault on 
a woman's right to choose. I want to reiterate that the woman has made 
her choice to keep that baby. It is the criminal that took away that 
choice. We just want to punish that criminal more severely than he is 
under existing law.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Graham), a proponent of this bill.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

[[Page H1644]]

  Mr. Speaker, the best way to describe how the substitute and the bill 
actually works in the real world is to tell a story that actually 
happened. You talk about an assault on Roe v. Wade; I am talking about 
a assault on Shawana Pace, an African American woman who lived in 
Arkansas. On August 26, 1999, she was kidnapped by three men, she was 
pregnant, she was near her due date, she had already named the baby 
Heaven once she got the ultrasound test back. She had a baby boy, and 
she had already named her unborn child Heaven.
  Her boyfriend, the father, former boyfriend, paid three people $400 
to kidnap her and terminate her pregnancy because he did not want to 
pay child support. They did that. They kidnapped her, they took her 
away. She is lying on the floor and they are beating her within an inch 
of her life, and one of them says, ``Your baby is dying tonight.'' 
Strangely enough, she was pleading for her baby's life, not hers.
  The good news in this story, if there is any, is that the three 
people plus the boyfriend, two of them are on death row in Arkansas 
because Arkansas, several weeks before, had passed a law recognizing 
the unborn child as a separate victim; and under that statute, the 
prosecutor was able to bring a murder charge, not enhance the 
punishment on the assault charge.
  Now, I did not have the death penalty in this bill because I did not 
want to get into that debate, but if this had happened in Federal 
jurisdiction, there would have been no enhancing of the assault charge, 
there would have been a murder charge because that is what they were 
hired to do, that is what they did, and I think most Americans would 
want them to be prosecuted for murder, not play some game of enhancing 
punishment that ignores what really happened.

                              {time}  1330

  They can do that without affecting Roe v. Wade. That is why I had so 
many pro-choice votes last time. One can be pro-choice and still 
support this bill. It happened before, and it is going to happen again 
today. Those people that were hired to do a terrible thing get the full 
force of the law because there is a statute on the books in Arkansas 
that is just like the one that I am trying to pass here in Congress.
  Rae Carruth, NFL football player, hired a person to kill his pregnant 
girlfriend. She refused to have an abortion. He did not want to pay for 
the child. The hit man charged $5,000 for the mother and $5,000 for the 
baby, charged him twice.
  Let us punish him twice. That is what this bill does.
  The substitute is just an irrational way to deal with the unborn. We 
can have an honest, healthy debate about abortion rights. In my bill, I 
protect the right to have an abortion because it is the law of the 
land; but pro-choice and pro-life people should come together when the 
woman chooses to have the baby and put the full force and effect of the 
law against a criminal who is paid or otherwise takes that life away. 
They are not inconsistent.
  It would be a better country if we passed this bill, and prosecutors 
will have more tools because if one takes the murder or assault charge 
off because they do not recognize the baby, the ability to fully 
prosecute that case is undermined, and I think most prosecutors would 
agree.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) is my friend. He says 
this is an assault on abortion. It is not. In his State, they passed 
this same law using the same words in 1998.
  People still have the Roe v. Wade rights in Pennsylvania, but people 
assaulting pregnant women face stiffer penalties and more punishment 
because of what Pennsylvania did.
  Let us do this at the Federal level. Let us come together and make 
sure that people in the future who take money or otherwise assault a 
pregnant woman and destroy the unborn child are prosecuted to the 
fullest extent of the law, no excuses, no apologies.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just would like to note that the Arkansas statute is 
inconsistent with the Supreme Court decision, Meadows v. State, in 
Arkansas, and I do hope that the monster who committed that heinous 
crime does not walk because the statute is unconstitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Schiff), a former prosecutor and a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to attempt to speak on the 
unique tragedy and trauma suffered with the loss of a child. I think 
other Members have already spoken to that, and could speak to it with a 
passion of familiarity that neither I nor any other male Member of this 
Chamber could. Instead, I would like to speak as a former prosecutor, 
someone who for 6 years went into court and prosecuted a variety of 
Federal crimes, and has experience not only with the job of prosecuting 
those cases but also handling the inevitable motions, the appellate 
process, the habeas corpus petitions and all of the delays attendant to 
litigating complex issues.
  This is a criminal justice bill. This is a public safety measure. Its 
ostensible purpose is to use the vehicle of the criminal justice system 
to deter attacks on pregnant women, to incapacitate those who would 
conduct them by lengthening the sentences, to bring about retribution 
on those who would commit such a heinous act. All of the purposes of 
the criminal justice system are served by both bill and substitute; but 
if one has to choose as a prosecutor going into court under one law or 
going into court on another, they would certainly choose to go into 
court under a law that is less subject to constitutional challenge and 
attack.
  The bill, as it is drafted, using definitions like a member of the 
species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the 
womb, invites, demands in fact, constitutional litigation. As a 
prosecutor, one can be assured in both motion and appeal to the highest 
courts of the land they will be required to litigate when life begins 
under the bill.
  That is not required under the substitute. If it is our goal to give 
prosecutors that extra tool, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham) mentioned, if it is our goal to allow prosecutors to take more 
vigorous action to have greater penalties at their beck and call to 
deter, to incapacitate, to bring about retribution for these crimes, 
let us choose a substitute which makes that possible without this 
unprecedented constitutional litigation.
  Mr. CHABOT. 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 wonder if one would imagine 
with me an infant in a nursery in a hospital on life support. There is 
a terrorist bomb or an arsonist fire, and that infant and several 
others are killed. Can one imagine an argument that says that those 
babies that were not on life support were murdered but the baby on life 
support was not murdered?
  Mr. Speaker, the preborn baby, in its mother's womb, is simply on 
life support through the umbilical cord. When a pregnant woman is 
killed, clearly two lives are snuffed out. There are two murders. When 
a woman is assaulted, sometimes with the intention of killing that 
preborn child who is simply on life support in her womb, 
indistinguishable from a baby just born, clearly that also is murder.
  This legislation is long past due. Defeat the amendment. Support the 
base bill.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney), a leader in the fight for rights for women.
  (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for yielding and congratulate 
her for her extraordinary leadership on this issue and so many other 
issues before the committee protecting women.
  Very simply, if one wants to punish people who attack pregnant women 
and injure or destroy their fetuses, then vote for the Lofgren 
substitute, because that is what it does. Its penalties are stricter. 
If, however, the goal is to declare fetuses to be separate people

[[Page H1645]]

under the criminal code and to thereby further the right-to-life 
movement, then the underlying bill is what should be voted for. That is 
what the difference is about. The Bush administration is clearly in the 
camp of the right-to-life movement.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in the Record the statement of 
administration policy that clearly supports the underlying bill that 
erodes a woman's right to choose, knocks out one of the fundamental 
pillars under Roe v. Wade.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

    (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned 
                               agencies.)


 H.R. 503--Unborn victims of violence act of 2001 (Rep. Graham (R) SC 
                           and 95 cosponsors)

       The Administration supports protection for unborn children 
     and therefore supports House passage of H.R. 503. The 
     legislation would make it a separate Federal offense to cause 
     death or bodily injury to a child, who is in utero, in the 
     course of committing any one of 68 Federal offenses. The bill 
     also would make substantially identical amendments to the 
     Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Administration would 
     strongly oppose any amendment to H.R. 503, such as a so-
     called ``One-Victim'' Substitute, which would define the 
     bill's crimes as having only one victim--the pregnant woman.

  Mr. Speaker, vote for the Lofgren amendment. Vote for a woman's right 
to choose and a reasonable approach to protect her and against the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, why would Planned Parenthood 
and a virtual who's who of abortion activists in America so vehemently 
oppose the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and promote a gutting 
substitute in its stead? Why is it that on the floor of the House on a 
very pleasant Thursday afternoon that so many intelligent and talented 
and gifted lawmakers, to whom so much has been given, are going to such 
great lengths to deny basic protections in law for an unborn child who 
has been shot, beaten, stabbed or otherwise mauled by an attacker?
  Could it be that America's abortion culture, a culture of death, has 
so numbed our hearts and dulled our minds that we have become incapable 
or unwilling of recognizing the obvious? Could it be denial?
  Amazingly, as a result of breathtaking breakthroughs in medicine, 
unborn children are today often treated as patients in need of curative 
procedures and healing, just like any other patient.
  Is the concept of unborn child as victim really so hard to grasp, 
even when we are not talking about abortion, but assault by a mother? 
Is it lacking in logic or courage or common sense or compassion? Have 
the soothing voices of denial by credentialed people, especially in 
medicine and the media, ripped off our capacity to think? Has the 
horrific specter of 40 million poisoned or dismembered babies, legally 
enabled by Roe v. Wade, robbed us of our capability to see and to 
understand and to empathize? Have unborn children now become mere 
objects, a dehumanizing and deplorable status that feminists once 
rightly rebelled against?
  Does a mugger, Mr. Speaker, have an unfettered access to maim or kill 
a baby without triggering a response for a separate penalty for that 
crime?
  For years, Mr. Speaker, Congress has updated and strengthened laws 
and stiffened penalties for those who commit violence against women, 
and that is as it should be. Crafting such protections and penalties 
for perpetrators are among our highest responsibilities and duties as 
lawmakers.
  Last year, I am happy to say, I was the prime sponsor of bipartisan 
legislation, Public Law 106-386, the Victims of Trafficking in Violence 
Protection Act of 2000, a $3.4 billion comprehensive package of 
sweeping new laws designed to protect women from violence at home and 
overseas.
  Women who are victims of violence need every legal protection, 
appropriate shelter and assistance a caring society has to muster; but 
I would respectfully submit to my friends, so do children. A victim is 
a victim no matter how small. Why is it so difficult to recognize an 
unborn child as a victim who is all too capable of suffering trauma, 
disfigurement, disability or death?
  Unborn children feel pain. Unborn children bleed and bruise easily. 
Unborn children are as vulnerable as their mothers to an assailant 
wielding a knife, a gun or a steel pipe. The amniotic sac is like a 
protective bubble, but it is not made of Kevlar. It pierces easily.
  Earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, I met with Tracy Marciniak. Three 
years ago, her husband beat her and killed her almost full-term baby. 
The child, Zachariah, died from the bleeding; and this is what Tracy 
has said to all of us: ``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 said, ``and it is 
offensive to me because it says there is only one victim in such a 
crime, the woman who is pregnant. Please hear me on this,'' she goes on 
to say. ``On the night of February 8, 1992, there were two victims. I 
was nearly killed but I survived. Little Zachariah died,'' she goes on.
  ``Any law maker who is thinking of voting for the Lofgren one-victim 
amendment should first look at the picture of me holding my dead son at 
the funeral. Then I would say to that representative,'' she continues, 
``if you really think that nobody died that night, then vote for the 
one-victim but please remember Zachariah's name and face when you 
decide.''
  Vote for the underlying bill and against the substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, why would Planned Parenthood and a virtual who's who of 
abortion activities in America so vehemently oppose the Unborn Victims 
of Violence Act and promote a gutting substitute in its stead?
  Why is it, that on the floor of the House of Representatives on a 
pleasant Thursday afternoon in April, so many intelligent, talented and 
gifted lawmakers to whom so much has been given, are going to such 
great lengths to deny basic protections in law for an unborn child who 
has been shot, beaten, stabbed, or otherwise mauled by an attacker?
  Could it be that America's abortion culture--a culture of death--has 
so numbed our hearts and dulled our minds that we have become 
incapable--or unwilling--of recognizing the obvious? Could it be 
``Denial'' with a Capital D?
  Amazingly, as a result of breathtaking breakthroughs in medicine, 
unborn children are today often treated as patients in need of curative 
procedures and healing just like any other patient. Is the concept of 
unborn child as victim really so hard to grasp--even when we are not 
talking about abortion, but assault by a mugger?
  Have the soothing voices of denial by credentialed people--especially 
in medicine and the media--ripped off our capacity to think? Has the 
horrific specter of 40 million poisoned or dismembered babies legally 
enabled by Row v. Wade robbed us of our capability to see and 
understand and empathize?
  Is it a lacking in logic, or courage or common sense or compassion?
  Have unborn children become mere objects--a dehumanizing and 
deplorable status that feminists once rightly rebelled against?
  Does a mugger--like an abortionist--have unfettered access to maim or 
kill a baby without triggering a separate penalty for the crime?
  For years, Mr. Speaker, Congress has updated and strengthened laws 
and stiffened penalties for those who commit violence against women. 
And that is as it should be. Crafting such protections--and penalties 
for perpetrators--are among our highest responsibilities and duties as 
lawmakers.
  Last year, I was the Prime Sponsor of bipartisan PL 106-386,--
``Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000--a $3.4 
billion comprehensive package of sweeping new laws designed to protect 
women from violence at home and overseas.
  Women who are victims of violence need every legal protection, 
appropriate shelter and assistance a caring society has to muster.
  But, I would respectfully submit--so do children. A victim is a 
victim, it seems to me, no matter how small.
  Why then is it so difficult to recognize an unborn child as a victim 
who is all too capable of suffering serve trauma, disfigurement, 
disability or death? Unborn children feel pain; unborn children bleed 
and bruise easily; unborn children are as vulnerable as their mothers 
to an assailant wielding a knife, or gun, or steel pipe.

  The amniotic sac is like a protective bubble, but it isn't made of 
Kevlar. It pierces easily.
  Earlier this week, I met with Tracy Marciniak. A few years ago her 
husband beat her and her almost full term baby. The child--Zachariah--
died from the beating. Her attacker was charged and convicted of an 
assault on Tracy. He did minimal time. No charges, however, were 
brought against the

[[Page H1646]]

abuser for the crime--murder--he committed on Zachariah. Why? Because 
Zachariah had no legal value or standing--and could be killed with 
impunity.
  Tracy has written:

       Congress should approve the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. 
     Opponents of the bill have put forth a counter proposal, 
     known as the Lofgren Amendment. I have read it, and it is 
     offensive to me, because it says that there is only one 
     victim in such a crime--the women who is pregnant.
       Please hear me on this: On the night of February 8, 1992, 
     there were two victims. I was nearly killed--but I survived. 
     Little Zachariah died.
       Any lawmaker who is thinking of voting for the Lofgren 
     ``one-victim'' amendment should first look at the 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. But please remember Zachariah's name and 
     face when you decide.

  Anybody who thinks there is no dead baby in this picture should vote 
for the ``one-victim'' amendment. But anyone who sees a grieving mother 
holding her dead son should vote for the Unborn Victims of Violence 
Act.
  Mr. Speaker, under H.R. 503, 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 baby.
  Of significance, 24 states have enacted laws recognizing unborn 
children as victims of violent crime. In upholding the Minnesota 
statute, the Minnesota Supreme Court said ``Roe v. Wade does not 
protect, much less confer on an assailant, a third party unilateral 
right to destroy the fetus.''
  The Lofgren amendment, stripped of its surface appeal trappings and 
enhanced penalty has one pro-abortion strategic objective--Denial. 
Denial that an unborn child has inherent dignity. Denial that an unborn 
child has worth. Denial that an unborn child has innate value. How 
incredibly sad--and dangerous.
  The Lofgren amendment must be rejected.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just note that the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Smith) asked, is there unfettered access for a mother to maim her 
child at any time in the pregnancy? If one reads Roe, clearly post-
viability, the ability to secure abortions is severely limited only to 
those cases where a woman's health is severely damaged. I think that 
that needs to be made clear.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren) for yielding me this time, and for her great leadership on 
this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the ranking member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary as well for facilitating the Lofgren amendment coming to 
the floor.
  It is masterful, it really is, because it answers the concerns that 
are posed by the proposers of the original bill to expand the penalty 
for those who commit violence against pregnant women, and it does so in 
a way that achieves that goal but is constitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that acts of violence against pregnant 
women are reprehensible and should be punished. We all agree that acts 
of violence that harm a fetus are obviously unacceptable and repulsive 
to us. We can all agree that we must prevent violence against women 
whether pregnant or not.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who just spoke, whom I 
hold in very high esteem, asked the question how could otherwise 
intelligent, caring people come to the floor and be opposed to this 
legislation that is being opposed by our colleagues on the other side? 
He said, could it be, he had a series of could-it-be's, that we could 
ignore violence against a pregnant woman?

                              {time}  1345

  But we are not ignoring it. The Lofgren amendment addresses it very 
directly without doing violence to the issue.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute proposed by my 
colleague. The substitute would create a separate Federal criminal 
offense for harm to pregnant women, but would not confer new legal 
status on the fetus.
  So I respond to my colleague, could it be that, as a woman, I know a 
little bit more about this subject than maybe he does? Could it be that 
as a mother of five, a grandmother of four, and hopefully more 
grandchildren to come, that I understand how reprehensible violence 
against a pregnant woman is?
  But if that is the issue, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren) has responded to it. The bill on the floor is 
unconstitutional. It is a move to undo, which it cannot do, unless it 
is a constitutional amendment, but it is an attempt to undo Roe v. 
Wade.
  In 1973, we all know the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade stated that the 
unborn have never been recognized in the laws as persons in the whole 
sense. The Court specifically rejected the theory that grants personage 
to the fetus because it may override the rights of pregnant women that 
are at stake.
  I urge my colleagues to accept the solution that is here, that 
addresses the problem in a constitutional way, and does not do violence 
to a woman's rights.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, (Ms. Hart), a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying bill and in 
opposition to the Lofgren amendment. It does not, as is claimed by its 
supporters, accomplish the same goal that those who sponsored the 
original bill, the underlying bill, have. In fact, it does complicate 
and somewhat confuse the issue.
  Claims have been made that are quite disingenuous regarding the 
underlying bill and also regarding the effectiveness of the proposed 
substitute. Firstly, the underlying bill is very clear about the 
violent act that must be committed against the pregnant woman. Although 
those supporters of the substitute claim that the pregnant woman is not 
recognized, she clearly is. Federal law recognizes violence against 
everyone as a crime, and enumerates a number of different crimes which 
would be the basis for the actual use of this proposal, H.R. 503.
  The amendment does not refer to these particular laws. It in fact 
creates a separate offense which is unclear as to its effectiveness by 
prosecutors. The other legislation that has been on the books has been 
prosecuted many times. Those who were not even the intended victim of a 
crime would still be, those women, would still be victims, as a result 
of transferred intent. It is unclear in the substitute that that 
principle would be able to be used.
  Mr. Speaker, I would implore my colleagues to quit hiding from the 
real issue. The real issue here is actual violence against women and 
children. The real issue is a way for us to actually prosecute a more 
severe crime when the woman is lucky enough to survive a dreadful 
assault, but the child is not.
  Our goal here is to recognize reality. What our responsibility is 
here as Representatives is to recognize reality and to protect the 
citizens of the United States, the women who are victims and the 
children who are victims.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before recognizing the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia, I would like to note that the criminal offenses in H.R. 503 
are exactly the same as those in the substitute, except that we do 
require prosecution and then a separate prosecution for the 
miscarriage.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am outraged at the use of old-fashioned abortion 
politics to get at a serious problem. Let me indicate just how serious 
the problem is. I participated recently in a press conference called by 
the American College of Nurses and Midwives here in the District of 
Columbia, now published in an AMA Journal.
  In the District of Columbia, autopsies had been performed on pregnant 
women. What was discovered was that there were 13 homicides of pregnant 
women that had not been reported along with maternal deaths. These 13 
unreported deaths accounted for 38 percent of pregnancy-associated 
deaths.
  Now, these women had several things in common. They tended to be very 
young, 15 to 19; they were unmarried; they were murdered early in their 
pregnancy. There was no category in the FBI or accepted among the 
States to report these deaths. I have written to

[[Page H1647]]

the FBI to ask that a category be created, and I have written to the 
GAO asking that a study be done of such deaths throughout the country, 
because clearly what we found here is nationwide.
  What is our answer this afternoon? Our answer is a clearly 
unconstitutional bill that defines a fetus as a person, in direct in-
your-face violation of Roe v. Wade. There is a real problem out there. 
That problem is here in the Nation's capital. It is in your districts 
as well.
  The substitute, the Lofgren substitute, gives us an opportunity to do 
something about a horrible crime, rather than play the same old 
abortion politics we have been playing ever since Roe v. Wade. In the 
name of nameless murdered pregnant women, unnoted even in the crime 
records, let us seize the opportunity to pass a constitutional bill 
that will help eliminate a crime of immense and unspeakable 
seriousness.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would remind all 
Members and persons in the Chamber that it is the Speaker's policy that 
all audible devices be disabled before entering the House Chamber.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say that I respect the right of 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) to take the position she 
does. But let me address it as a father myself of two beautiful 
daughters and an adopted son.
  If my wife was attacked and she was pregnant, or my daughters, and 
they both survived, then I would support the enhancement clause that 
the gentlewoman is trying to put in here. If either my wife or the 
unborn child was killed, then I would want justice, not enhancement. As 
a father, to know that a child that I was going to have that would not 
be born in this life because of some criminal act, I feel that that is 
wrong.
  In Bosnia there was a Muslim that offered a private a child and says, 
``Help me get my child to the hospital.'' On the way, the Muslim man 
said that, ``Help me, private.'' The point is that they are all our 
children.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that the Lofgren-Conyers amendment 
is not a sentencing enhancement measure; it is a second offense that is 
prosecuted and hopefully convicted in the case of heinous crime.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time and for her leadership, and the ranking member for his leadership 
as well.
  This should be a debate, Mr. Speaker, about protecting women against 
violence, specifically about protecting pregnant women against 
violence, and the Lofgren amendment, the Lofgren substitute, does just 
that. It makes a new and very specific crime against violence to a 
pregnant woman that injures the fetus or terminates the pregnancy. That 
is the appropriate way to give such protection to pregnant women.
  The underlying bill politicizes this issue. I do not think it is 
intended to politicize the issue, but it does, because it would give to 
the fetus a legal status that the courts nor Congress have ever given. 
It would give to the fetus the same legal status and a separate legal 
status from the woman, and that is the heart of the abortion debate. By 
writing their bill in such a fashion, they open up the whole floodgate 
to the very polarizing and politicized abortion debate that has not 
moved forward nor helped us deal with the issue at hand.
  We should focus on potential injury to the woman, to violence to the 
pregnant woman, and pass the Lofgren substitute that is carefully 
written, that is constitutional, that is effective. It avoids the 
polarizing debate that prohibits us from solving this problem. The 
Lofgren substitute gets the job done. We should vote for it to protect 
women.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 503. The Unborn 
Victims of Violence Act is the first volley this term by the anti-
choice legislators to restrict a woman's right to choose. This bill 
would add to the Federal criminal code a separate new offense to punish 
individuals who injure or cause the death of a child which is in utero, 
regardless of the stage of development. It sounds innocuous enough, but 
in essence it is a sham.
  No one would argue that an attack on a pregnant woman that results in 
a miscarriage or an injury is not a tragedy. As one of the most vocal 
leaders in Congress on behalf of women and families, I have spoken on 
this House floor numerous times to end violence against women and 
domestic violence of all sorts.
  But that is not what we are talking about here today. H.R. 503 
eliminates the mother from the picture. She is of no concern. Instead, 
it affords an embryo the legal status that should be hers as a human 
being. Precisely the goal that the authors of H.R. 503 and the National 
Right to Life Committee seek to achieve is reaching this status.
  The supporters candidly admit that their purpose is to recognize the 
existence of a separate legal person, separate from its mother, before 
it is born. And supporters rejected a number of alternative tougher 
ways to address violence against the pregnant woman, each time citing 
the reason being that the alternative did not recognize embryonic 
personage.
  Do not be fooled. This is an anti-choice bill disguised as a crime 
bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Lofgren substitute 
which will provide the same penalties but does not separate the fetus 
from its mother.
  Last Friday, the press reported that President Bush does not intend 
to launch a frontal attack on Roe v. Wade or let his Presidency become 
mired in this controversy. If that is true, then we hope that we will 
not see more of these bills. In the meantime, please vote for the 
Lofgren substitute.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that both pro-choice and anti-choice Members of 
this body will vote for the Lofgren-Conyers substitute. It provides 
stronger penalties and greater protections in the case of assault on a 
pregnant woman.
  I note, and this is especially important to me and others who have 
spoken today from personal experience, that the protection will be to 
those who are in their 6th week of pregnancy, just as in their eighth 
month of pregnancy, and that is enormously important to us all.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 3\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), for the splendid substitute 
that she has let me help her work on, that we hope will bring us all 
back together.
  Just a couple of points: Please let everyone that is voting on this 
measure know that the substitute is not a penalty enhancement. Lofgren-
Conyers is not a penalty enhancement. It provides a new and separate 
offense for harm to a pregnant woman that can cause injury or 
termination of her pregnancy.

                              {time}  1400

  It contains two separate offenses. We got that out of the way.
  Okay, next. The substitute is tougher on criminals than is H.R. 503. 
Under the substitute, if a pregnancy is terminated, even 
unintentionally, the assailant can be sentenced to life in prison. By 
comparison, H.R. 503, the criminal must intentionally terminate 
pregnancy in order to get a life sentence. There is a big, big 
difference there.
  Now, to the reality of the matter. Because the major bill, H.R. 503, 
undermines Roe v. Wade, the Senate is not going to take it up. The 
Senate is not going to take up H.R. 503. We must come to that reality. 
They did not take it up in the last Congress; they will not take it up 
in this Congress in its present form. So if my friends on the other 
side of the aisle really want to protect unborn children, they will 
join us in supporting the substitute. So we are begging that our 
colleagues put

[[Page H1648]]

policy above the normal abortion politics.
  Now, there is still the heart of the matter here that under the 14th 
amendment, as provided in Roe, ``person'' as used in the 14th amendment 
does not include the unborn. We cannot change that. We are not here to 
change it today. In the 28 years since Roe, the Supreme Court has never 
afforded legal personhood to a fetus. So in the name of all of the 
women and the men in this country that support a woman's right to 
choose, please join with me in supporting the Lofgren-Conyers 
substitute. We think it would be a beautiful day forward, and we will 
give this bill the life that it needs to go to the other body.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of the substitute and the rejection 
of the base bill, H.R. 503.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Once again, we 
keep hearing the term, ``a woman's right to choose''; and I just want 
to say again that the woman chose to have the baby, it is the criminal 
that took away her right by killing her baby. And we are just trying to 
make it tougher on those criminals and to make the penalties much 
tougher and make it a separate offense if they take that child's life 
or harm that life.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), a proponent of this bill.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I respectfully disagree with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), my good friend. I am asking my colleagues to vote against the 
substitute and for the underlying bill.
  When one writes a bill that says you cannot prosecute someone under 
the bill who is performing a lawful abortion, you can never prosecute 
the mother for any of her conduct, you cannot prosecute medical 
providers, one would think it would not be about abortion. But some 
people want to talk about that, and that is politics. That is okay. 
That is the way politics works.
  I want to talk about the law and common sense. If one is a prosecutor 
and can pick between the substitute and my bill, I think every 
prosecutor I know of would pick my bill, because you could really have 
the full force and effect of the law against the criminal.
  Abortion rights are not going to be enhanced by voting against my 
bill and for the substitute. The only person that wins is the criminal. 
In the Arkansas case, she was begging for her baby's life and the 
criminal was saying, ``Your baby is dying tonight.'' Let us get 
together as a Congress in saying, once the woman chooses to have the 
baby and she is assaulted by a criminal who is paid to terminate her 
pregnancy through beating her and her baby to death, that that is a 
crime, not a fiction.
  She is begging for the baby's life; the man is saying, ``I am going 
to take your baby away from you tonight.'' Let us have a statute that 
allows that person to be prosecuted for what they intended to do, and 
that is, kill the unborn child; and in that statute, you protect Roe v. 
Wade rights.
  The pro-choice people who voted for my bill last year, thank you. You 
can be pro-choice and not pro-abortion. People say that it is possible. 
This is a case of being pro-choice, but not being pro-abortion because 
there is no reason to let the criminal go or diminish their punishment 
with a poorly drafted substitute, simply because one is worried about 
abortion when it is not covered by the bill.
  Let us focus our energies on putting criminals in jail when the 
mother chooses to have the baby. America will be better, prosecutors 
will have better tools, and we can go home and look pro-life and pro-
choice people in the eye and say, Congress responded to a very serious 
event in a very logical way.
  Please vote for the bill and against the underlying substitute. A lot 
is at stake. America will be better if we could pass this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Lofgren 
substitute. Unlike the underlying bill before the House today, the 
substitute truly addresses the serious issue of violence against women 
and would impose stricter penalties for causing harm to a fetus or 
forcibly terminating a pregnancy than exist today.
  Surely if we can find common ground on nothing else, we should all be 
able to agree that crimes against women that cause the loss of a 
pregnancy are tragic and deplorable acts. These crimes ought to be 
punished severely.
  The fundamental problem with the underlying bill is that it ignores 
where and when these crimes most often occur. H.R. 503 establishes 
criminal punishments for those who harm a fetus while committing any 
one of 68 specified federal crimes. The difficulty with this approach 
is that few of these crimes are actually tried in federal court, and 
many of the listed offenses are unlikely to result in harm to pregnant 
women. For example, how many pregnant women are impacted each year as a 
result of transactions involving nuclear materials? How many 
pregnancies are lost each year due to assaults or kidnappings of 
Members of Congress, the President's cabinet or members of the Supreme 
Court? The answer is: not many.
  At the same time, the bill is completely silent on the much more 
prevalent problem of domestic violence. It is estimated that domestic 
violence victimizes one million women a year. How can we discuss 
punishment of violence against pregnant women and ignore the crimes 
where this violence most often occurs?
  The Lofgren substitute, on the other hand, creates legal protection 
that truly helps women and punishes violence resulting in injury or 
termination of a pregnancy. It provides for a maximum 20-year sentence 
for injury to a women's pregnancy and up to a life sentence for violent 
conduct against a woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy. It 
makes it a federal crime. The substitute focuses on the harm to the 
pregnant woman, providing a deterrent against violence.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Lofgren substitute and oppose the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
H.R. 503, ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001.'' I am pleased that 
the ``Lofgren Substitute'' to H.R. 503, the ``Unborn Victims of 
Violence Act of 2001,'' brings the real issue of who is victimized in 
clear fashion. The substitute would replace the term ``unborn 
children'' where it appears in the appropriate places throughout the 
bill with ``violence during pregnancy.'' The result of my amendment 
would essentially ensure that the legislation recognizes the pregnant 
woman as the crime victim, not the ``unborn child.''
  The substitute seeks to address what I believe is a veiled attempt to 
create a legal status for the unborn. While I sympathize with the 
mothers who have lost fetuses due to the intentional violent acts of 
others, I believe, however, that H.R. 503 would obscure the rights of 
women. The substitute would prevent this legislation from opening the 
door to future legislation by which a woman could be held civilly or 
criminally liable for fetal injuries caused by behavior during her 
pregnancy that might have potentially adverse effects on her fetus 
including failing to eat properly, using prescription, nonprescription 
and illegal drugs, being exposed to infectious disease, engaging in 
immoderate exercise or sexual intercourse or using general anesthetic 
or drugs to include rapid labor during delivery.
  A new status of ``human-ness'' extended to the unborn fetus of a 
pregnant woman creates a situation of constitutional uneasiness. While 
the proponents of this bill claim that the bill would not punish women 
who choose to terminate their pregnancies, this bill will give anti-
abortion advocates a powerful tool against women's choice.
  The state courts that have expressed an opinion on this issue have 
done so with the caveat that while Roe protects a woman's 
constitutional right to choose, it does not protect a third party's 
destruction of a fetus. This bill will create a slippery slope that 
will result in doctors being sued for performing abortions, especially 
if the procedure is controversial, such as partial birth abortion. 
Although this bill exempts abortion procedures as a crime against the 
fetus, the potential for increased civil liability is present. Thus, 
disenchanted husbands and relatives would be able to bring suit who 
exercises her right to choose.
  Supporters of this bill should address the larger issue of domestic 
violence. For women who are the victims of violence by a husband or 
boyfriend, this bill does not address the abuse, but merely the result 
of that abuse.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Lofgren Substitute. We 
do not need this bill to provide special status to unborn fetuses. A 
better alternative is to create a sentence enhancement for any 
intentional harm done to a pregnant woman. This bill is simply a clever 
way of creating a legal status to erode abortion rights.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
119, the previous question is ordered on the bill and on the 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).

[[Page H1649]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 229, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 88]

                               AYES--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--229

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Capps
     Lantos
     Leach
     Meek (FL)
     Moakley
     Roybal-Allard

                              {time}  1427

  Messrs. YOUNG of Alaska, CRENSHAW, WHITFIELD, GILCHREST and PORTMAN 
and Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ROSS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). 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 the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 252, 
nays 172, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 89]

                               YEAS--252

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--172

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert

[[Page H1650]]


     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Rush
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Capps
     Jones (OH)
     Lantos
     Leach
     Meek (FL)
     Moakley
     Roybal-Allard

                              {time}  1447

  Mr. BONIOR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I originally voted ``yes'' on 
rollcall 88. I then walked to the well thinking I was voting on 89 and 
I voted ``no''. Therefore, my vote on 88 was changed to ``no'' and I 
was not recorded on 89. I intended to vote ``no'' on rollcall 89.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, due to a longstanding commitment to deliver 
a graduation commencement address, I am unable to be present to vote 
against H.R. 503, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act today. Had I been 
present I would have voted ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 503 because 
this legislation is an attack on a woman's right to choose.

                          ____________________