Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 25, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on National security space programs, and management, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Economic Policy of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 25, 2004, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``National Flood Insurance Repetitive Losses.''

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 25, 2004, for a joint hearing with the House of Representatives' Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to hear the legislative presentations of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs, AMVETS, American Ex-Prisoners of War, the Vietnam Veterans of America, and the Military Officers Association of America. The hearing will take place in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 25, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 25, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., on Cable Rates.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training be authorized to meet for a hearing on Hazard Communication in the Workplace during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 25, 2004 at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 25 at 2:30 p.m. to receive testimony regarding the following bills: S. 1085, a bill to provide for a bureau of reclamation program to assist states and local communities in evaluating and developing rural and small community water supply systems, and for other purposes; S. 1732, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a rural water supply program in the reclamation states to provide a clean, safe, affordable, and reliable water supply to rural residents: S. 2218, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a rural water supply program in the reclamation states to provide a clean, safe, affordable, and reliable water supply to rural residents and establish guidelines for projects and for other purposes; S. 1727, a bill to authorize additional appropriations for the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978; and S. 1791, a bill to amend the Lease Lot Conveyance Act of 2002 to provide that the amounts received by the United States under that act shall be deposited in the reclamation fund, and for other purposes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I object.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, before I yield to my friend and colleague from Alabama, let me say that I understand what my colleague from Louisiana has said and what my colleague from Washington State has said. I will reiterate what I said a few minutes ago. The reality of the way this place works, the way the House works, is that whatever the merits of this amendment, the passage of this amendment will effectively mean, that the underlying bill will simply die. The only thing to prevent the underlying bill from going to the White House and being signed by the President of the United States is the Murray amendment. That is what the facts are. If the Murray amendment is attached to this bill, we can kiss this bill goodbye. That is a fact. I yield to my colleague from Alabama.

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to begin the debate on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I would like first to thank our 40 cosponsors for their leadership and support on this issue. Let me also thank specifically Senator Lindsey Graham, who championed this issue on the House side for a number of years before he joined us here in the U.S. Senate. He has worked tirelessly to see to it that the most vulnerable members of our society are, in fact, protected. Let me also thank our lead House sponsors, Congresswoman Melissa Hart from Pennsylvania, and my friend and colleague from the State of Ohio, Congressman Steve Chabot. They have both been great champions of this great cause. They worked tirelessly to help get this important bill passed in the House of Representatives. Our bill is very simple. I will take just a couple of minutes to explain it. It is a bill about simple justice. It is a bill about doing what is right. I was asked yesterday by one of my colleagues, Why do we need this bill? Why is this bill on the floor? This is what I responded yesterday and this is what I would say to my colleagues here in the Senate this morning. Imagine a pregnant woman in a national park or a pregnant woman on an Air Force base and she is violently assaulted. As a result of that assault, she loses her child; that child dies. Today, there is no Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Today, unless that Federal park or Air Force base is located in a State that has a similar law, a Federal prosecutor would search the Federal statute books in vain to find anything to charge that assailant for the death of that child, for the death of that unborn infant, the fetus. The only thing that Federal prosecutor would be able to charge that defendant with is the assault of the woman. The death of that child would not be able to be charged as what we would think would be a separate offense. Justice would not be done for that, what we would think would be a separate offense. This bill corrects that. This bill recognizes there are two victims. There is the victim, the mother, who was assaulted; and there is the victim, the unborn child, who was either injured or killed. It is that simple. This bill recognizes when someone attacks and harms a mother and her unborn child that attack does in fact result in two separate victims: the mother and her child. That is what this bill does. I will have more to say about this bill later. I will reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Oklahoma. How much time do I have?

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. DeWINE. And the Senator from California?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Oklahoma.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I will again point out for those who are worried about some great precedent being set here in regard to abortion that over half the States have similar laws and many of them are absolutely identical to what we are writing. So people should not be concerned about this.

Mr. DeWINE. I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to run equally on both sides.

Mr. DeWINE. I think we are about ready to close this out.

Mr. DeWINE. Thank you. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania 5 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. DeWINE. I yield to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield to my colleague from South Carolina first.

Mr. DeWINE. I am prepared to yield back our time on the general debate.

Mr. DeWINE. In a moment, I will yield to my colleague from South Carolina. Mr. President, before I yield to my colleague, I want to respond very briefly to my colleague and friend from California in regard, again, to the question of abortion. My colleague is concerned--I understand her sincerity because she has expressed it many times on the Senate floor. I don't doubt that sincerity at all--that somehow this bill sets a precedent regarding abortion. First of all, we all know statutes cannot overcome the Supreme Court decisions, constitutional law. We should not be concerned about what the statute will do. We particularly should not be concerned when we know many of the States have statutes very similar to what we propose to enact today. In fact, several of the States have had these statutes in place for up to 30 years. They have not in any way changed or infringed on abortion rights. Whatever one might think of abortion rights, these have not affected them and this bill will not affect them. To make sure of that, we put provisions in this statute, which I have read on the floor today, which make it crystal clear they will not in any way affect that. So we have precedent. We have the fact that statutes cannot interfere with constitutional law, plus we have precedent of many years of experience of State laws not interfering with abortion rights. So there is just no reason for anybody, when they come to the floor to vote on this, to think this is in any way going to affect abortion rights at all. My friend has talked about the fact that we follow what I believe 16 States have done when we begin to protect the unborn. Some States define it differently. My colleague has cited what California and some States do. They are defined differently. But we follow in this statute what some others States have done. In our proposed statute, we use this language, and I would say it is not what my colleague, with all respect, has said. This is what the language is: . . . who is carried in the womb. ``Who is carried in the womb,'' that is the language, the precise term that is used, ``carried in the womb.'' As a practical matter, since this is a criminal statute, we all know that to prosecute under this statute, a prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, to prosecute under this law, that there was this unborn child. They would have to prove the existence of the child. And then they would have to prove there was death or injury to the child beyond a reasonable doubt. They have to prove the existence, first of all, beyond a reasonable doubt, and then they have to prove the death or injury beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not, with all due respect, a question of at the moment of conception that this protection, as a practical matter, would kick in. First, it has to be carried in the womb; second, you would have to be able to prove the existence and then prove there was injury or prove there was death. That is the practical application of the statute we propose to pass. I yield to my friend and colleague from South Carolina.

Mr. DeWINE. I commend my colleague again for her dedication to this issue, and her passion. But the fact is, as I have said, this bill cannot pass through this method. It will have the unintended effect of killing the underlying bill. That is why I must come to the floor and oppose it. Let me yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from Oklahoma.