Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of stem cell research, research that is ethical and which has been proven effective. The stem cell research I am referring to is derived from adults, umbilical cord blood, and placental blood, to name just a few sources. I, however, am not talking about stem cell research extracted from human embryos. We can and are saving lives with stem cells gathered from adults even more effectively than the stem cell research from embryos that some of my colleagues favor. We would think that this would be enough to convince folks where they should be on this important issue. In case it is not, the fact that living human embryos would be deliberately destroyed in order to obtain their stem cells to me is absolutely appalling. Once we begin justifying the killing of human beings at one stage of development, we invite other troubling applications. Stem cell research from human embryos establishes a bad precedent and is ethically wrong. Human life is too valuable. Let us condemn the logic of faulty research that extinguishes one life on the pretext of extending others. Instead, we should support the promising research methods that will save lives without ending others.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very interesting, I hope our Members are watching this debate, because it is so telling about what is going on in the debate about providing energy so that Americans can turn on their lights, turn their stoves on and get natural gas, heat their homes. It is just amazing to me. The Florida delegation, Mr. Chairman, says that they want to keep this pipeline, that if we do away with the pipeline it is going to cost jobs. But last week they did not care about the jobs that would be lost by shutting down a lease sale. And now we are listening to the argument that exploring and producing oil and gas, natural gas, is like raising chickens. I guess if I asked the Florida delegation where does natural gas come from, they would say, ``My stove.'' Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment to let Floridians share in the shortages that they are forcing on the rest of America. Last week, our friends from Florida torpedoed an extremely promising field of oil and gas. That action jeopardized our energy security. However, they do not apply that policy consistently. It turns out that Floridians are far more accommodating on energy issues that directly benefit their own State. They shot down lease sale 181 even though it holds billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. The Florida delegation ignored the important role that these reserves could have in the lowering of our national dependence on foreign sources. It is common knowledge that America is increasingly relying on natural gas to produce electricity. That trend is happening because making electricity with natural gas can be less taxing on the environment than other types of generation. Well, it has to come from somewhere. They will not let us find more in the gulf, but Florida sure is not resisting the trend toward natural gas. Florida's natural gas demand for electricity will double over the next 20 years. Florida's population will grow by a third over the same time period. And they plan to supply electricity to their expanded population with generating plants that burn natural gas. This is the height, oh, I have to use the word, of arrogance. Of arrogance. I did not want to use the word. This is the height of arrogance. Florida is happy to burn it, but they block the rest of America from securing a steady and adequate supply of natural gas. That is why Members from Florida are not blocking a proposed natural gas pipeline that will stretch 800 miles through gulf waters from Alabama to the beaches of Florida. And these are the same gulf waters that Florida placed off-limits to exploration that could help the rest of the country. I oppose the gentleman from Florida's amendment to block opposition to this pipeline. Florida rivals California as a prime example of the not-in-my- backyard syndrome. Let Florida take the lead in conservation. Let them make do with half the natural gas that they are projected to need. If Florida is going to lead America to greater dependence on foreign sources of energy, then let them do it on their own. There is another thing Floridians ought to remember, as pretty as their beaches may be, they are still a long walk from most places in America. And if their reactionary opposition to oil exploration holds sway, tourists will be making their way to Florida on shoe leather. Members should oppose this amendment to help Floridians understand the implications of their actions.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe amendments like this. It is the height of irresponsibility. I think Members should oppose this amendment because it establishes a horribly irresponsible precedent for our energy security in this country. The Democrat leadership is constraining our economy within the same energy straitjacket that they applied under the Carter administration and that they are applying now in California that brings blackouts. The working people of America are depending on us to open energy reserves to safe, environmentally responsible exploration. Without reliable energy, our economy will crumble. It will mean blackouts, layoffs, and plant closings. This energy security obstructionism is one aspect of a broader effort to systematically choke off every promising source of domestic energy. It is hard to fathom how this campaign to block energy production could be driven by anything but a misguided motivation to weaken America and to leave us beholden to foreign sources of energy. The Democrat leadership is at war with our ability to produce an adequate and dependable energy supply. They oppose safe oil exploration. They oppose expanded nuclear power. They oppose clean coal. They oppose ANWR. They oppose tapping the natural gas trapped beneath public lands. They oppose drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. And now they oppose slant drilling in Michigan. Now, they are for closing plants. They are for closing refineries. They are against opening any new plants. They oppose everything that allows us to increase our supply. Their actual objective must be to eradicate America's energy security. Why else would the Democrat leadership be recklessly pursuing a policy that is weakening the United States economy? The question for Democrats to answer is this: Where will Americans go for the energy that they need to sustain their quality of life after you have completely strangled our ability to produce the energy that we need? What will Democrats tell the men and women stranded in gas lines? What explanation will they offer families suffering through frequent and recurring blackouts? What justification will they offer to workers when they open a pink slip after plants are forced out of business by spiraling energy costs? And this environmental extremism, this radical environmentalism is entirely unwarranted. Today, slant drilling technology allows us to safely withdraw oil and gas beneath bodies of water from the shore. Environmentally safe. We do not have to trade environmental safety for energy security. Members, please oppose these amendments that weaken America by enhancing the power that foreign suppliers of energy hold over our Nation.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, we have seen time and time again that the best qualities within the people that we know often emerge when the weight of a tragic event presses down upon us. In Houston, we have learned this lesson all over again. The unending rains from the Tropical Storm Allison overwhelmed our bayous, overflowed our streams, and flooded our streets and buildings and homes; but they did not dampen the vigor of Houston. We Texans pride ourselves on maintaining the spirit of the West. It has passed down from the early generations, who fought the elements, to build a new life in Texas. They were tested, and those that stayed shared a very common quality. They had the resilience and resourcefulness to outlast Mother Nature and overcome the obstacles that she places in our path. Part of that creed is the understanding that when nature strikes, you pitch in to help your friends and neighbors. We understand that. We understand that when we rally together, no adversity, can keep us down for very long. Houstonians demonstrated that they have not forgotten their responsibility to aid each other during Allison. We feel deeply for all our neighbors who lost a loved one or a friend. This tragedy claimed far too many lives. Many others lost belongings and had their homes turned inside out by this storm. But we can be certain that far more people would have died if Houstonians had not responded as quickly and as vigorously as they did. Many, many people deserve to be thanked for their efforts. We are grateful to the Coast Guard and Red Cross, to the National Guard troops, and our local police officers and fire fighters. We say thank you. For every individual citizen who lifted a hand or waded out into the flood waters to bring comfort and assistance to the others, we say thank you so very much. Your efforts make us a great community and a great place to raise a family. All Houstonians also appreciate the swift response from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Bush administration. By reacting quickly, they are helping us get back on our feet. When I stopped by the Red Cross shelter in Pearland, I saw the best and most poignant tribute to the men and women who pitched in in responding to Allison. Hanging inside the shelter was a little small sign that was written in crayon by a child, and it simply said ``God bless you for helping us.'' When the floodgates opened on Houston, we were ready to respond with charity, sacrifice, hard work and compassion. I hope we always stand ready to react with the same qualities.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because the Houston Metro bureaucracy still has not resolved a primary shortcoming. They have not assembled the facts and they have not placed those facts before our community in Houston. Without the facts, how can Houstonians make an informed decision about light rail? The answer is they cannot, and I am not going to tolerate an end run around accountability. Without a referendum on rail, Houstonians would be blindly committing billions of dollars to a vast project with an unknown price tag, unproven performance, and an undetermined impact on our most pressing problem in the Houston-Galveston area, and that is mobility. The decision to make a multi-billion-dollar transportation commitment cannot be made without the consent of the whole community. That is why I took action last year to suspend the diversion of Federal funds approved for transportation improvements from being used to fund light rail. And it is why I am asking my colleagues to continue supporting this restriction. My constituents expect me to safeguard their tax dollars, not flit them away on an unproven concept. A light rail system is far from the most effective way for Houston to reduce congestion. In fact, Houston Metro has even admitted that the Main Street line does nothing to reduce congestion and is not even a transportation project. They themselves call it an economic development project. The decision to build a light rail system would affect everyone in Houston. Supporters must document the ability of a rail system to reduce congestion and increase mobility. And they must take that case to the citizens of Houston to earn their support for a citywide light rail system. The people of Houston and the Houston metroplex deserve to be heard on this question and a referendum gives them that voice. But the community cannot make an informed choice without all the facts and Houston Metro is not giving them the information that they need. The method used to build the Main Street line gives every appearance of an attempt to evade accountability. Metro is moving forward with a piecemeal construction plan much like they did in Dallas, Texas, and they are moving that piecemeal construction plan without explaining light rail's broader mobility impact on the region. I trust the people of Houston. They can make the right choice if they have all the facts. Metro needs to prepare a comprehensive mobility plan that takes all of our needs into account. It should document all the challenges that contribute to congestion in the Houston region. It should describe all the different options to reduce congestion. And it should measure and compare the effectiveness of those options. Only then will people be able to make an informed decision about light rail. An additional problem with the Main Street line is that it simply is not a mobility project. The Main Street line is an economic development project. We have a mobility crisis in Houston. We must spend the available transportation dollars on measures that actually target and reduce congestion. In the last 2 years running, we have added over 500,000 new trips to our transportation system; and yet we are only able to come up with enough money, about $300 million, to add more capacity to our mobility plan. And guess what this little 7-mile economic development plan costs? $300 million. We could do a lot more for that $300 million in improving the mobility of Houston. So contrary to what some people may think, the pool of Federal transportation dollars is not infinite. Spending billions on light rail will severely restrict the funds for highway improvements and other mobility improvements. Houston cannot afford to gamble on an unproven light rail system. So I ask Members to oppose this amendment and demand accountability in transportation spending.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I rise today because I am outraged. Outraged that the People's Republic of China is holding American scholars against their will. H. Res. 160, introduced by my colleague Mr. Smith of New Jersey, takes an important step toward addressing the human and civil rights abuses committed by the Communist Chinese government. This Congress must not let human rights abuses by China or any other nation go unchecked. At the present time, Li Shaomin and other scholars are being held in Chinese prisons for ``crimes against the State.'' These Americans may be enduring torture and coercion, and may be forced into ``confessing'' to crimes they did not commit. But these are perhaps the least of the indignities that these men and women must endures. The imprisonment of Li Shaomin and other American scholars of Chinese ancestry are just symptoms of the larger disease that is China's blatant disregard for human life and human rights. It is clear from the State Department's 2000 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in China, that the Communist Chinese government commits, on a daily basis, violations of the most essential and basic human rights. Let our support for this resolution send a clear and compelling signal that this Congress and our Nation will not stand silently by while natural and universal human rights are curtailed in China or anywhere else.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, in these times this amendment makes no sense, and it is the height of irresponsibility. This lease is not off the coast of Florida, it is in the Gulf of Mexico. It is off the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi. This amendment makes about as much sense as shutting down all exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. It weakens our energy security. Our long-term energy security, particularly at this time, requires us to seek out new sources of oil and natural gas. America is growing increasingly dependent on foreign sources of oil. That trend endangers our national security. When the proportion of oil we import from a volatile region rises, average Americans grow more vulnerable to supply interruptions and international conflicts. When we have an opportunity to reverse this trend, we need to seize upon it. We need to take responsible steps to decrease our dependence on foreign sources, and when we discover a promising domestic reserve of natural gas and oil, we need to move forward by opening that area to safe exploration. Lease sale 181 has the potential to play a very important role in strengthening our energy security. It could hold trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of barrels of oil. Natural gas and oil produced at home lowers the sway that potentially hostile foreign leaders would hold over average Americans. Recently we have seen fluctuations in the price of natural gas because supplies have run short. This clean-burning fuel is becoming an increasingly important source of energy. Each additional source adds to the supply and can offset new demand for natural gas. Lease sale 181 can make natural gas prices lower and more stable. Now, some Members oppose exploration in this area because they are concerned about environmental risks. That is a radical notion, because what we think is a reasonable and understandable concern is not a concern at all. We do not face an either/or proposition. Lease sale 181 can be explored safely. Today advances in technology let drilling platforms probe much larger areas. Sophisticated new drilling devices provide multiple protections against oil spills. We can add these resources to our energy supply without compromising environmental standards. I say to the gentlewoman from Florida, the best fishing in the world is around these platforms, if the gentlewoman has ever taken the time to visit one. Over the past 20 years, oil exploration firms operating in the Gulf have built a solid track record of environmental stewardship. Defeat this amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, under the President's leadership, the country is beginning to focus on the need to take firm steps to enhance our energy security. The President is putting people over politics. I wish the minority would do the same. Across the Nation, we are seeing the predictable consequences of allowing regulatory red tape and government intrusions to constrain our ability to produce the energy that we need. Mr. Speaker, our energy security sustains our quality of life. The amendments offered by the minority threaten our freedom and our energy security, and that is why they should be rejected and not allowed in this rule. We need to solve the shortage of energy with a broad and a balanced plan. We need to encourage initiatives to reduce demand by conserving energy. We need to encourage the introduction of new technology that will allow us to accomplish more with the energy that we use. But there should be no confusion about the unmistakable need to expand the diversity of supply and to increase the production of energy. Unfortunately, the electricity crisis in California offers an object lesson in the danger of allowing political half measures to be substituted for a successful market-based solution. We are talking about price caps. Today, politicians in California are demanding additional government regulation as the pathway to relief from the consequences of earlier government regulation. Let us be clear about this. In every place government price controls have been tried, those price controls have failed to achieve the results that their supporters have promised. They failed when Republican Presidents used them; they failed when Democrat Presidents used them. All government price controls can offer California is the specter of longer and more frequent blackouts. The electricity marketplace in California, as we all know, is severely dysfunctional. The people of California are suffering today because the demand of electricity exceeds the available supply. Until that fundamental imbalance is resolved, their problems will continue. It happened because politicians in California place so much red tape and regulation on the energy sector that energy suppliers could not build the power plants needed to supply California's energy-hungry economy. That is the fundamental problem in California. Government price controls cannot work because all they do is prolong and exacerbate the problem. California must begin building the capacity it needs to create the additional electricity that its markets demand. That is the only way out. Price controls will not create an additional, not one additional, megawatt of electricity. What they will do is discourage the construction of new power plants and dissuade electricity generators from investing in the improvements and advancements that will actually increase the supply of electricity in California. Government price controls fly in the face of the most basic laws of economics. They swim against supply and demand. Members should reject that siren song of price caps. Remember this, government price controls will mean more blackouts. I urge the adoption of this rule and reject the opposition.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, last month the House lost a valued Member when Joe Moakley passed away. I didn't always vote with Joe and there were a number of areas we disagreed about. But you didn't have to see eye-to-eye with Joe Moakley to recognize that he was a great American. When people speak fondly of the way things used to be, I believe what they're really missing are the qualities that carried America through our most challenging moments. Courage, compassion, integrity, patriotism, perseverance, and faith in God. He had these qualities in abundance. When our country faced the daunting challenge of the Second World War, Joe Moakley was so eager to join the fight that he broke the rules to shorten the odds for America. He was only fifteen when he sailed off to the South Pacific to defend freedom. Over the course of his life, he carried out the commitment to service he learned from his father. Hard work defines his life because he never stopped working for his constituents in South Boston. Those of us who served with him soon grew to understand his commitment to the House. On the Boston City Council, in the Massachusetts State House and here in the House of Representatives, he won elections, lost elections, overcame adversity and always maintained his deep loyalty to the people of his district. In his manner, he was open, friendly, and down to earth. We can all learn a lot about life by remembering the way that Joe Moakley faced a challenge. From the beginning of his life until his final struggle drew to a close, he greeted adversity with determination, he met fear with courage, and he lived out the last days with the calm confidence of a good man strengthened by a deep and sustaining faith. To know Joe Moakley was to respect him. We honor his service to this House and to our nation. America can always use more of the qualities Joe Moakley brought to public service.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, today we have the special privilege of welcoming to our country a companion on the pathway of freedom and respect for individual rights. President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan walks with us on the road to expanded liberty and equality. His commitment, to stand up and speak out for democracy on behalf of the Taiwanese people, entitles him to a warm and open welcome in the cradle of liberty. We hope that President Chen's historic visit will demonstrate to the world that the fraternal ties of freedom are the most enduring, gratifying, and unbreakable bonds between people and nations. America and Taiwan share a noble expectation. We hope to see all the world's peoples exercising their fundamental right to self-government. We believe that democratic principles offer the best chance for stability and opportunity in every country and on every continent. When a democratic government leads every nation, prosperity and opportunity will be attainable conditions for everyone. In Taiwan and in America,, our people believe that, for every citizen, the ability to vote for one's leaders is a fundamental and universal human right. We believe that legitimate governments are granted the right to exercise power by their people. We believe that this grant of power flows up from the governed not down from the government. Every fair and just government respects this principle. Governments that do not respect it can be neither. One year ago, the people of Taiwan proudly completed the first democratic transition of power in their history. That peaceful transfer of power is the essence of democracy. It was all the more inspiring because the Taiwanese people ignored a campaign of intimidation that was designed to coerce voters into rejecting President Chen. That Communist bluster failed to move the free people of Taiwan. Once again, freedom trumped fear. The passion for freedom is firmly rooted in the soil of Taiwan. Taiwan is an oasis of freedom. Several years ago, during a visit to Taipei, I saw the amazing spirit and vitality shown by the Taiwanese people. The principles of capitalism and freedom were blossoming across Taiwan. We are rightfully honoring that passion for freedom by allowing the President of Taiwan to visit America. The record in Taiwan should be an example for other nations: Freedom and democracy work. We hope that President Chen and his delegation feel the same emotions I felt when I was in Taipei as they visit the United States. Texas and Houston are America at her best. Texans appreciate and understand freedom. We know that it requires both sacrifice and responsibility. And we are especially proud to host President Chen's delegation for a visit. We hope that President Chen's visit will lead to enhanced ties between Taiwan and the United States. We share commerce, culture and a devotion to the principles of freedom and democracy. He is a worthy friend and we offer him a heartfelt welcome to the United States.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, current law unfairly divides our fallen heroes into two camps. Officers who sacrificed their lives after 1997 are granted the fair and reasonable recognition of allowing their families to draw survivor benefits without paying taxes on the benefits. Society recognizes that officers who make the supreme sacrifice deserve to be treated in a special way through this provision, which is designed to express our gratitude to the surviving family members. Unfortunately, this distinction does not currently apply to the surviving families of officers who fell before January 1987. The law discriminates against these law enforcement officers because it denies their families the right to draw their survivor's benefits without taxes. We need to treat all of our fallen officers equally. We should single out those brave officers who give their lives protecting society. We should demonstrate a special reverence for their demanding and dangerous work as law enforcement officers. Easing the burden on surviving family members is a fair and appropriate gesture to convey our thanks and respect. Members should show our appreciation by supporting this legislation.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, when the United States sends its Armed Forces into harm's way, we do it to defend freedom and to maintain our commitment to the principles enumerated by our founding documents. It would be an irony of the cruelest sort if the men and women of America sends out to defend the spirit of our Constitution were denied its protections. We ask a lot of our Armed Forces. We should not ask them to sacrifice their constitutional rights merely to serve as pawns for an International Criminal Court that may pursue political vendettas at the expense of the individual American soldiers. If the Congress allowed such a thing to happen, we would not only be abdicating our duty to the Nation, we would be abandoning the sacred covenant between Congress and our men and women in uniform. The birth of this rogue court forces Members to choose between appeasing international bureaucrats and defending the rights of our servicemembers. The choice is stark, defined and, I think, unavoidable. There is no middle ground here. Members can side with the United Nations or defend our military. Last week, we were reminded how fickle the U.N. can be when a cabal of human rights abusing nations were voted onto the Human Rights Commission and the United States was booted off. Now these same people may become the highest authority on international law. But make no mistake, unlike the Commission on Human Rights whose power is mainly rhetorical, the ICC poses a real threat to our Nation's military. We simply cannot allow American soldiers to fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Under its terms, Americans could be brought before the court and tried without important rights. They could be denied a jury trial. They could be denied cross-examination of hostile witnesses. Americans could even be forced to give self-incriminating testimony. This amendment will make it clear that the United States cannot support a court that places our citizens in the hands of U.N. bureaucrats. It will erect essential legal barriers to protect Americans, and it will strengthen our ability to demand changes to the court. Last year, I received a letter supporting this amendment signed by 12 of the most respected foreign policy advisers to every President from Nixon to President Clinton. This amendment is supported by the VFW, the Fleet Reservists, the Noncommissioned Officers and the Reserve Officers, just to name a few. Mr. Chairman, we must remain cautious and watchful stewards of our American sovereignty. Many nations have many reasons to erode our rights. Members should not fail our first principles by allowing an unaccountable international entity to trample core American freedoms. Support this amendment and stop that from happening. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the former chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman emeritus of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor). (Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 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. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. The gentlemen asked me a question. He controls the time. Would he like an answer?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeLAY

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.