Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Whitfield amendment and enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary), the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) about the need for comprehensive legislation to address worker exposures at Department of Energy facilities during the Cold War. Mr. Chairman, I along with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) represent a large number of Cold War veterans at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina who helped this great Nation win the Cold War through their dedication and hard work. We have heard the last several speakers talk about DOE workers across the Nation who were exposed to levels of radiation greater than they should have been, and other DOE workers who were exposed to other substances, including beryllium, which have had an adverse effect on their health. I think that all Members will agree that if through the course of producing nuclear weapons for this great Nation, Department of Energy or Department of Energy contract employees were caused physical harm, we owe it to them to seek a remedy for their lost wages and medical treatment. Mr. Chairman, I know that as of late there has been a concerted effort on the part of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the Department of Energy and others to come up with a plan to offer these workers compensation. I believe the smart and responsible thing for us to do is to take a look at this situation and make sure we do the right thing for the workers. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Smith) of the Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims in which he states, ``I hope to work with you and other Members to address the need to compensate workers at DOE weapons production facilities whose health has suffered as a result of their employment. Furthermore, I expect to hold hearings on this subject in the coming months.'' I appreciate the willingness of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) to hold a hearing on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Hilleary) has a similar letter from the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee. (Mr. HILLEARY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) if they will agree to assist us in holding a hearing on this matter this year and make serious efforts to pass comprehensive workers compensation legislation?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, last week Representative George Miller, Representative Dale Kildee and I introduced the Quality Teacher Recruitment Act of 2000. This bipartisan bill will help recruit high- quality teachers for the low income school districts that need them most. The Quality Teacher Recruitment Act of 2000 will allow new teachers to have their federal education loans forgiven up to $17,750 after teaching in an eligible school for five consecutive years. This bill is a win for everyone: school districts will have an easier time recruiting high-quality teachers and new teachers will have their commitment to high-need schools rewarded by allowing them to significantly reduce their student loan debt. Most importantly, students will benefit from having highly qualified teachers in their classrooms. In 1998, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Higher Education Amendments. This bill provided up to $5,000 in student loan forgiveness for teachers that taught for five years in a Title I school with 30 percent or higher poverty. In addition, this provision required that eligible secondary teachers have a relevant major to the area in which they were teaching and that eligible elementary school teachers were certified in reading, writing, math and other areas of curriculum as determined by the local school officials. The $5,000 in loan forgiveness now offered is helpful, however, education majors graduate with an average of $17,750 in federal student loans. The Quality Teacher Recruitment Act of 2000 will improve on the existing loan forgiveness in the Higher Education Amendments by allowing qualifying teachers to have their loans forgiven up to this higher amount. The Quality Teacher Recruitment Act of 2000 will benefit teachers, students, and school districts across the country. Whether it is a low income school in rural America, or a high poverty urban district, schools who have had historically difficult times recruiting teachers will profit from the Quality Teacher Recruitment Act of 2000.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Taiwan on its National Day. I wish to extend my condolences to the people of Taiwan who have lost loved ones during Taiwan's most recent earthquakes, and I pray that Taiwan will soon return to normalcy. The Taiwanese government has been trying its very best to help all victims and their families with financial and psychological assistance whenever and wherever it is needed. I am pleased to learn that they have received so much international assistance from around the world as they begin to rebuild. The people of the United States have been so generous with their donations of time and materials in an effort to help Taiwan cope with the devastation of the quake. The silver lining of this latest tragedy is that is proves Taiwan is not alone in the world. Taiwan has many friends here and around the world who stand willing and ready to help. We hope that Taiwan will have fully recovered in time to celebrate their next National Day.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. The reason the gentleman cannot answer the question, Mr. Chairman, if we had that as a rule, every 401(k) plan in America would fold, because nobody in their right mind is going to offer these benefits so they can be sued in 50 States under 50 different theories of plan management. The reason we have this law at the Federal level is to encourage employers to offer health care and retirement benefits so they know what the rules are, and they cannot be nickeled and dimed in every State. This is an emotional topic from the plaintiff's point of view and from the business point of view. If Members want to destroy health care, allow 50 different theories of liability. People are going to get out of the business.

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to say I have thoroughly enjoyed working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and the other two Members who are Norwood-Dingell cosponsors on trying to bring some common sense reform to a very important issue. Where are the American people? The American people, whether one is Republican or Democrat alike, believe HMOs should be sued when they hurt people. The American people believe one should be able to choose one's own doctor even if one has to pay more money out of their own pocket. The American people believe that one should not have to call the insurance company before one can take a kid to the emergency room, and they should not be able to deny treatment and payment because one did not call them. The American people are very much for a lot of the reforms in this bill. The American people are also for limiting our tort system in a way that keeps people in business. The American people are very much for common sense legal reform. That is what this bill does. Here is the question of the 29 Republicans who have voted ``no,'' and here is the question to the Democratic Party: What if we kept the health care in Norwood-Dingell the same? What if we did not change it one word? What if we gave all of the patient protections that Norwood- Dingell give the American people? What would my colleagues do if we asked them to move a little bit toward the American business community by giving them a chance to keep their employees with health care in the area of liability? My question is, can we tear down the legal wall that unfairly protects HMOs from liability and keep people in the health care business? Yes, we can, if people will work together. The answer will be no if we continue on this confrontational track. What do we do differently? We do nothing different in health care. Here is what we do in liability. I address my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), and his comments. We keep it at the Federal level. Do my colleagues know why we keep it at the Federal level? Because uniformity is helpful in controlling costs. ERISA is a Federal law that protects employees' retirement benefits. If one has a claim under ERISA for one's retirement, one does not go to 50 different States. We do not let 50 different States write 401K plans. One goes to Federal court, and one has their day in Federal court because it is a Federal law that is uniform to make sure employers who do business in more than one State can have one set of rules to live by so that they know the rules of the road. We give a uniform forum to the people who may be aggrieved, and we give them a fair day in Federal court. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, if Norwood-Dingell passes the way it is today, here is what is going to happen in corporate America. If one can be sued as a multi-State business in 50 different States with 50 different legal theories of holding people accountable in the health care industry, we are going to have lawyers meet with the corporate board and say, you are going to be chasing jury verdicts all over this country. Get out of this business. This is voluntary on your part; you do not have to do it. You are going to spend more time in State court on lawyer fees than you are going to spend on health care. If we allow 50 different theories of being sued, we are going to not only tumble down the liability wall, we are going to tumble down the benefits that go to the people who need it the most, and that is the employees. What do we do in this bill? We limit damages in two areas. Economic damages are fully recovered. Let me say this to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). I have represented housewives, people who do not have the traditional job. Let me tell my colleague, if we put down what it cost to run a family, we can add up some serious damages, because people who stay at home and take care of families have a job, and we can turn that into money as a lawyer, because I have done it. One can get one's full range of damages under this bill, but we are not going to let people make up numbers called pain and suffering beyond a half a million dollars to keep people in business. Punitive damages are taken off the table. If we leave that as a form of damages, the cost of premiums are going to go through the roof. Punitive damages helps no one have a better quality of life except the lawyer who puts the money in their pocket, and I have been a lawyer seeking punitive damages. Mr. Chairman, we can have common sense legal reform that gives people a fair day in court, that allows businesses to be sued, but in a uniform manner with a national standard so that they do not get out of this business chasing 50 different juries. If we want to help patients keep the health care the same, if we want to help business, give them a chance to understand the rules of the road no matter where they do business; give them some commonsense legal protection so that they do not get sued to death. Mr. Chairman, this bill as currently written is going nowhere. With some common sense changes, it can become the law of the land and people can have the health care they deserve and paid for; they can have their day in court, and people like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) who have been in business and offered employee benefits can continue to do that if we will work together.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those kind comments from my friend across the river in Georgia. We agree on most everything. One thing I am not going to do when this is over, go practice dentistry. I promise the Members that today. I appreciate all these doctors wanting to rewrite this liability section, but let me ask one question of my friends on the other side. Are they suggesting that if a fiduciary mismanages the retirement benefits of a company or employees, that they should be sued in State court? Is that what they are telling us? Under current law under ERISA, if there is a mismanagement by the fiduciary of the employees' retirement benefits, is it the gentleman's belief that State court is the proper place to sue?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the case previously mentioned on the floor. It is a very emotional topic. Under our bill, they would have a legal remedy. They would have a wrongful death claim brought in Federal court. They would get a full range of what has been lost: the future wages, past wages, past medical bills, the entire package that goes with a wrongful death claim, plus a half a million dollars for pain and suffering, which in a wrongful death claim is very hard to get anyway. They would get that whole range. The liability wall would come down. Let me just make this one statement. I am asking every member of this House who has voted for products liability reform, where we limit damages, just like we do here, to ask themselves, are they being honest with themselves? What is the deal, here? If someone gets hurt by a machine, we are entitled to limit damages, but if they get hurt by an HMO, for some strange reason and they go through the roof, 280 people in this House have voted for liability reform just like we have today, including the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and including the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood). They were willing to limit damages then, but not now. Why?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, where common ground exists, let me explain it. We are on the verge of doing something positive, but we are about to blow it. This bill, according to CBO, costs $7 billion to the Treasury. We have to work somehow to make that up. Let me say this about liability and be as direct as I know how. 280 Members of this body have voted in the products liability area to limit damages, even economic damages, and change every law in every State and trump every court lawsuit anywhere in the country because they thought it was good for business and fair to plaintiffs. We have passed the Cox amendment that would limit damage recoveries if medical malpractice occurred because we want to lower the cost of medicine and still give people a fair day in court. Let me say this to my friends on the other side. We have a nice young man here who has probably a sad, bad story to tell. I want to help to make sure these things never happen again by getting the health care that people need. I do not want to drive people out of ERISA coverage. ERISA is designed at the Federal level to encourage people to have retirement plans and health care plans. What have we done in the past? If somebody gets hurt by a doctor, this body was willing to say nationally that a plaintiff could only get this much money for the good of medicine. If somebody was blown up by a product, and I have had those cases, and I can show my colleagues files that would make them sick to their stomach, emotional things happen in lawsuit situations. I can show my colleagues product liability cases, but this House was willing to say this is all a plaintiff gets for the good of the Nation. My colleagues, we are going to blow it if we do not reform the liability measure to keep it so people have a fair day in court but we do not drive well-meaning people out of business. It costs $7 billion already. This is the one area we have shown in the past we were willing to limit recovery for the greater good. And I do not want to discount the fact that health care needs to be improved, but I am a lawyer and I know what we are setting up with a 50-State lawsuit form. We are going to drive people out of business.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I can show my colleagues cases of people that have lost their lives, lost their limbs in product liability suits that were treated by a doctor who was drunk. This House has in the past limited damage recoveries not because they are mean but because they want to keep people in business and lower the cost of medicine. This young man, under this bill, would have a full range of damages available to him to treat him in the future to make him as best he can be in terms of damages. What my colleagues are doing is they are not helping him. They are taking people with health care coverage and for no good reason letting 50 States with unlimited damages take his mom and dad out of the health care market for no good reason.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, no, I am certainly by no means Moses. Do my colleagues know what I was before I was in Congress? I was a trial lawyer. I was glad to do what I did for a living. Because when somebody came into my office, I tried to help them where I could, and I would always be honest: you do not have a case. I am sorry. It would be a waste of your money and my time. But every now and then people would come in like the folks that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) have displayed on the floor tonight. And if my colleagues think suing a hospital or a doctor is easy, they have never done it. They have got to find an expert that will be willing to say the standard of care was not adhered to. And most people that come into the office do not have enough money to pay the bill, so we have got to go into our own account and advance costs. The most dramatic form of litigation I have ever been involved in is suing health care professionals because most people in the community want to support their doctors and to give them the best benefit of a doubt, as they should. It is traumatic; it is emotional for the doctor and their family. And it is traumatic for the patient; and it is very, very expensive. But it needs to occur in situations where people are wrongfully treated. We need to have liability over HMOs' heads. When they make a decision for the plan participant, they need to understand that if they nickel- and-dime folks and they do not treat them fairly, they could wind up in a courtroom. But having made my living in courtrooms, let me tell my colleagues, we could do better than all the options that we have heard about tonight. To say that legal liability does not affect insurance and the ability to have health care is wrong. Legal liability is something employers look at very hard. I believe, when it is all said and done, that there are no guys with white hats and black hats in this debate. I support Norwood-Ganske- Dingell, and I will vote for it no matter what happens because I believe the Senate Republican bill does not get us where we need to go as a country. I am going to ask my colleagues to listen to one thing at the end of this debate. I am not a doctor, and I am not going to practice medicine because it is not what I know how to do. But I am a lawyer. I can tell my colleagues this: we can create a fair day in court for people in this country, but we have got to look long and hard at how we do it. Because one day, if we do not watch it, we are going to drive people out of the health care business. If we allow State court lawsuits for companies that do business in more than one State, I believe we will have a legal conversation that goes like this: the corporate lawyer is going to tell the company, You are subject to 50 different legal theories of liability. There are 50 different rules out there. And you are going to have to think long and hard if you want to stay in this business. To give this back to the State where there is no uniformity is going to drive up cost, and it is going to be very complicated to administer. What I suggest is let us keep the Federal court system as it is but allow full range of lawsuits. If they have a bodily injury, sue for the complete recovery of their damages, but let us make it uniform so people do not lose their health care and have some damage limitations.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, very quickly, I will hit this head-on the best that I know how. That if you are saying here today that Roe v. Wade is a ``get out of jail free'' card for criminals who assault pregnant women and destroy their unborn children, you are not reading the same ruling that I am reading. Roe v. Wade never said that third- party criminals have open season on unborn children. Roe v. Wade said that women can terminate their own pregnancy in certain conditions in the first trimester. The Supreme Court has not said you cannot pass a statute holding criminals liable for attacking pregnant women. For 29 years, California, the gentlewoman's home State, has had a statute that makes it a crime for a third-party criminal to kill a nonviable, in medical terms, fetus and there are people sitting in California in jail right now, and all over this country in States that have these statutes, and they are not going to get out of jail because of Roe v. Wade. They are serving their time because the statute that sent them to jail is constitutional. That is why they are in jail and they are not going to get out. Mr. Chairman, we have the authority if we so choose to make it a Federal offense to attack a pregnant woman and destroy her unborn child and to charge her separately. This is an opportunity to do what a lot of Americans wish we would do, regardless of how you feel about abortion. The substitute, Mr. Chairman, that destroys the purpose of this bill is inartfully written and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) said, ``We are not really worried about the words, we are worried about Roe v. Wade.'' I am worried about the words because when I prosecuted people in the past as a prosecutor, the words mattered. It has to be written right. The words in the substitute will allow criminals to get away with killing unborn children, what most Americans, I believe, would not want to happen. Mr. Chairman, it comes down to this. When a criminal becomes the judge, the jury and the executioner of an unborn child that was wanted by the woman, let us act. Let us stand up and give Federal prosecutors the right to hold them fully accountable for what they have done, taking a life that was wanted, that was being nurtured. This is a chance to do something that is necessary in the law and unfortunately is going to happen somewhere, sometime, some thug is going to attack a pregnant woman where Federal jurisdiction exists and they are going to take her baby away and they are going to kill that baby. We have got a chance to put them in jail if they can prove the case. Let us give them the tools, a good statute to do what justice demands. You cannot under Federal law execute a woman who is pregnant. A Democratic Congress made that illegal. The reason they did that is because they know that most Americans would not want to execute a pregnant woman because they would not want the unborn child to die for the crimes of the mother. Let us make sure that criminals are also barred from taking that unborn child, and if they do, they go to jail. I thank my colleagues very much for paying attention to an important debate. Vote ``no'' to the substitute. Give prosecutors the tool they need to prosecute criminals who want to take babies away from women who have chosen to have them. Pass this bill.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is an important debate. It is going to be an emotional debate. All I ask is that the Members look long and hard at what the statute does, not what people are trying to claim it does but actually read it. Take some time to read it, to think about it. If Members have any questions, I will be glad to try and answer them the best I can. Let us start with an example of what the intent and purpose of this bill is trying to do. We will start with an Arkansas case that happened about a month or two ago. The case involved a man who had a girlfriend, a former girlfriend, and he tried to persuade her to have an abortion and she said no, I do not want to have an abortion, and she decided to carry the child to term. This person, this man, did not want to be responsible for this child, so when she was in her ninth month in Arkansas, he allegedly hired three people to go and beat her and kill her baby, with the express purpose of beating her to the point that she would lose her child. Well, they did that. Allegedly they grabbed this woman, took her away and beat her. She was on the floor begging for her baby's life. She was not saying, ``Don't terminate my pregnancy, please don't kill my baby.'' And the allegation goes that one of the assailants said, ``You don't get it, bitch. Your baby dies tonight.'' There was a CNN program yesterday where the woman was interviewed and she was talking about how she could hear the heartbeat fade away and how that affected her. This was a seven-pound baby girl. This cries out not just for some action, it cries out for severe punishment. What they are allowed to do in Arkansas, they can now charge these three people and the man involved who hired them with the crime of murder, because 6 weeks before this event, Arkansas passed a law making it a separate offense for a criminal to cause the death or injury of an unborn child. And because of that law, these three thugs and the man that hired them are facing capital murder charges, not just an additional penalty for assaulting the woman. This is not just a loss to the woman. She was not begging, ``Don't lose something for me,'' she was begging, ``Don't take my baby away,'' something she understood to be separate and apart from her. Without that law, the three people that were hired to beat her and cause her to lose her child would never have been prosecuted for what they intended to do, which was to kill the baby. Now, what are we trying to do in this statute? We are trying to do what 24 States have already done in some fashion. Federal law is silent on this question. This bill only applies to Federal statutes that already exist. In this bill, if a woman is covered by a Federal statute and happens to be pregnant and she is assaulted and her baby is injured or killed, under this statute the Federal prosecutor can bring an additional charge, that being the loss or the injury to the child in addition to the assault to the mother. It does not change any State law, it only applies where Federal law already is in existence by adding an additional charge like States do, recognizing the entity, the child, the unborn child, being a separate victim. That is the scope. That is the purpose. California has had a similar statute since 1970. There are a lot of statutes throughout our States that deal with this issue in varying ways. One thing this bill does, it allows the prosecution to occur at the moment the embryo is attached to the womb like 11 States. There is no requirement for viability to be had before the criminal can be prosecuted. Many States take that tack. Missouri is one of them. Their statute has been upheld by the Supreme Court as being constitutional because it did not infringe on Roe versus Wade rights, it only applied to third-party criminals who assault pregnant women and destroy the unborn child, recognizing that they could be prosecuted. This statute is legally sound, and I think it brings Americans together in this fashion: When the term ``abortion'' is brought up, we divide as a country. That is not going to change any time soon. There is a genuine debate and heartfelt views about that. But I believe most Americans in the Arkansas case would want the criminals prosecuted for killing that baby. I think most Americans would want the person who shot the woman five times with a baby inside of her, her child, to be prosecuted for the two events, assaulting the woman and killing the child. I think, regardless of pro-life or pro-choice feelings, that most Americans want to protect the unborn from violence against criminals, and when a woman chooses to have her child, a criminal should not take that away from her. It is not just a loss from sentencing enhancement, it is the taking away of a life. If Members have got any doubt about Federal law and the unborn, I am going to read something to them. I hope every Member of Congress will sit down and think for a moment. The implementation of the death penalty at the Federal level is covered by section 3596. It talks about how the death penalty is imposed at the Federal level and under what manner it can be imposed, but it has a section. Listen to this. Section 3596, Federal law, section B, Pregnant Women. ``A sentence of death shall not be carried out upon a woman while she is pregnant.'' Why? Why do we not execute women while they are pregnant if it is just a mere loss to the woman? She is going to lose her life, why not just go ahead and do it? Federal law understands that we are not going to kill an unborn child because of the crimes of her mother. I would suggest to Members that 99.9 percent of Americans agree with that concept, and if you tried to execute a woman who was pregnant, there would be a hue and cry throughout this Nation like you have not seen or heard ever before. What I am trying to do in this bill is fill a gap in the Federal law and say this: If the State cannot kill the unborn child for the crimes of the mother, a criminal who destroys or injures an unborn child should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because it is more than a loss to the woman. That is all I am saying. Roe versus Wade clearly says that when it comes to the woman choosing about her pregnancy, that is her decision in the first trimester. This bill expressly exempts consensual abortions because it is the law of the land, that that is the right of the woman to choose as to her own body. This bill does not allow a prosecution of the woman if she takes drugs or does damage to her own baby. I did not go down that road. The woman under no circumstances can be prosecuted, nor can medical personnel. All I am saying is if a pregnant woman is assaulted where Federal jurisdiction exists already and her baby is destroyed or injured, the criminal is going to pay a separate debt to society. So if one of your constituents comes to Capitol Hill and visits you and while up here, unimaginable things happen, terrible things happen, they are assaulted and they happen to be pregnant and lose their child, because this is an exclusive Federal jurisdiction area, this statute would kick in to allow a prosecution of that criminal who took their baby away from them when they chose to have it. I hope that rationality will prevail and that Members will actually read the statute. We are going to divide the pro-choice and pro- abortion people today, because abortion has taken a fervor among some Members that they have lost the view of what is right, fair and common sense. Let us bring ourselves together and do some good.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I just ask the Members who have been following the debate, just keep their eye on the ball. Before I became a Member of Congress, like many of my colleagues, I lived my life in the law. I was a prosecutor. I was a defense attorney. I practiced law in the military. I was a member of the Judge Advocate General Corps for 6\1/2\ years and served as a prosecutor and a defense attorney in that capacity. I enjoyed my profession. I enjoyed the law. I particularly enjoyed the criminal law because I think it has a simplicity and a common sense to it that really is unique in the world in the sense of the way we have designed it here in America. I have never been around a debate that distorted so many simple and long-held legal concepts as this debate. I urge Members to vote against this substitute because it destroys the bill. It is fatally defective. When I designed this bill, it came about as a result of some information being passed to me from military colleagues who talked about the Robbins case and without the Ohio statute the person would have gotten away with the crime of murder, of destroying that 8-month-old baby. So there is a need out there at the Federal level to do something about problems like this. What I did is I looked at State law and I found a definition of unborn that we adopted from a State whose statute has been constitutionally challenged and upheld. I just did not make it up. I thought like a lawyer. I went to what was true and tested, and the language in this bill has been true and tested in court. It withstands legal scrutiny. These are not words we make up for political reasons. These are words we use to make sure people go to jail who deserve to stay in jail. The substitute is sentence enhancement and it uses the term, termination, interruption of pregnancy but it has no definition of what that means. If one is concerned about zygotes being subject to the criminal law, then they have a real concern about the substitute. My bill defines ``unborn'' as when it attaches to the womb. Zygotes are not covered, but there is no definitional section in the substitute and it would not withstand scrutiny. The loss, who is the loss here? Is it just merely the loss to the woman when an unborn child is killed by a third party or injured by a third party criminal? No. It is not just a loss to the woman. It is a loss to society. In 1994, the Democratic Congress passed legislation that prevented a pregnant woman from being sentenced to death while she is pregnant. If it is just a loss to the woman, they would go ahead and execute her, but my colleagues understood in 1994 they are not going to execute a pregnant woman because they do not want to kill an unborn child because of the crimes of the mother. This statute focuses on criminal behavior like 24 other States. This statute will allow a separate prosecution for people who attack pregnant women, and injure or kill their unborn child, in a constitutional manner. The substitute claims to bring an additional charge to bear. Mr. Chairman, that cannot be done. Sentence enhancement is one theory. That means the sentence is elevated against the charge that would be levied against the assault against the mother. In the Arkansas case, where 3 people were hired to beat the woman up with the express purpose of killing the baby, if sentence enhancement was the law in Arkansas all that could be done was enhance the charge that would be brought against attacking the mother and the murder of the child would go unpunished. There is a huge legal difference between the charge of murder and sentence enhancement for a simple assault or an aggravated assault. This substitute destroys the legal effect of the bill. It would not withstand scrutiny. They have just literally thrown this thing together. There is no definition or guidance in it. It is internally inconsistent. I would challenge anybody to be able to bring two separate accounts: One, a crime against the mother, Mrs. Jones; two a separate charge for terminating her pregnancy. One cannot find somebody guilty of that charge. One has to have a victim. Her sentence could be enchanced but that allows people to get away with what I believe to be murder, like in Arkansas. Please reject this substitute and understand we spent a lot of time and effort looking at tested law and this is something I hope Members of this body can agree on. Third party criminals who attack women and destroy or injure children ought to go to jail for what they have done.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I spent days, hours, a lot of time with a lot of people to draft in bill for an express purpose, not to have an abortion debate, but we will have it. This is a free and open House. You can talk about what you want to. My goal is to have a statute that will put people in jail when they do harm. When they do bad things, they suffer bad consequences. California has a statute very similar to this that has been in existence for 29 years. Go open up a phone book and see if you can have an abortion in California. You can. There are 24 states that have made it a crime to destroy an unborn child by a third party, and a woman can still get a legal abortion. This bill exempts consensual abortions because it is about criminals, not abortions. Sometime, somewhere, unfortunately, given human nature, there will be a woman assaulted where Federal jurisdiction exists and she will lose her baby, and I want to make sure that person goes to jail for taking her baby away from her when she chooses to have it. I hope you will help me do it.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, count me into the crowd that says, I do not want to destroy the best interest of the child rule that courts use in determining what is the best place for the child to live. But here is the point I think we are missing: Parental rights attach in a couple ways. Biological parents have parental rights because they are the biological parents. Can they be terminated? Yes. A court can terminate the parental rights of a biological parent. But they have to have a court proceeding where they give notice to the parent and somebody comes and makes a case; and the judge, based on the best interest of the child, will make a legal determination that their parental rights are null and void. This is a dramatic thing in the law. That happens. But it happens very rarely. But there is room in the law to terminate parental rights. The best interest of the child is always a concern by the court. But there is a legal concept in our law that I hope we never destroy, and that is that biological parents cannot lose their children without a very good reason and we are not going to form families outside the law without a very good reason. A person who adopts a child that is a ward of the State becomes a legal parent by going through a process that is a pretty exhaustive review of that person's qualifications to see if the best interest of the child can be accommodated by placing that child, the ward of the State, into the hands of an individual. What my colleagues are trying to prevent here, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) is doing a good thing in my opinion, is not to take a couple, regardless of their gender, living outside of marriage and put them in the same spot or the same status under the law as a couple who are legally recognized as a married couple. That is a tremendously damaging concept I think to the legal structure around marriage. That does not mean single individuals cannot adopt children. What the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) is saying is that couples that are not connected by the legal binds of marriage that has rules of the game and allow them separate property and assets, that we are not going to extend the adoption rules to these couples. And that makes a lot of sense.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that half the time allotted for debate on this bill be given to those who are in opposition to the bill.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Let us talk about who is helped and who is hurt. Let me give some numbers consistent with what the gentleman just spoke of. He said 130,000 jobs in 20 years. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that the apparel and textile industries lost 134,000 jobs in 1 year, 30,000 jobs in South Carolina in 12 months. This will be a national holiday in China when Members pass this bill. The Chinese are going to send through Africa material made in China, apparel goods made in China that we would not let exist 20 seconds over here with the work conditions. There is going to be a stamp, ``Made in Africa'' but the slave labor comes from China, and it is going to put people from my district and the districts of my colleagues out of work. Sixty percent of the people in the textile industry and apparel industry are women, 35 percent are minorities, mostly African Americans. Where are they going to go to work? We are going to give China an opportunity to destroy our textile industry. The trade policies of both parties are absolutely abysmal. We are played for a fool. I would not let either parties trade my car.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, does the rule provide for those in opposition to this bill an opportunity to speak against the bill?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, there was an emotional plea to have some compassion and understanding for the young ladies who find themselves in this horrible spot. I would also encourage my colleagues to have that same compassion and understanding for those young ladies, but also for the parents and for the law because the best way to handle hard problems in society is to have laws that make some sense and have a procedure. Every State law that requires parental notification has a procedure to have the young ladies' needs addressed and that people can, in fact, go to a judge and seek relief. I have stood with victims, I have not been in their shoes, of people who have been raped by their parents, who have been abused by their parents, and as a prosecutor I felt a real desire and need to prosecute those people. As a Congressman, I feel a real desire and need to uphold the law where the law has been passed in a duly constitutional fashion. What the other side is doing is they do not like parental notification statutes. Well, just go back home and lobby the legislature. If they do not like the law back home, go home and change it; but when a law that is passed by a State that affects a minor's interest, whether it is abortion or anything else, do not let people conspire, regardless of the family relationship or the business interest, to cheat the State out of a law that they duly passed. If we do it here, where is it going to stop? Because someone has a view of abortion different than the State in question, do not allow people to go around and cheat the States out of the laws that were duly passed. If one does not like it as a Member of Congress, go home and talk about it. This statute addresses a real problem. There are ads being run in this country to lure people across State lines to perform abortions, and they talk about the fact that a person does not have to get parental notification. Avoid that State law; go find somebody to bring them over here and we will do something that the State has a different view of across the border. For those of us in Congress who really do respect the role of the States and really do respect State rights and parental rights, we need to come to the aid of the people who find themselves in this dilemma. What good does it do for a State legislature to pass a law if people can avoid it and Congress remains silent? Stand up for people who are trying to follow the law.