Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, we rise in gratitude to Drina Collins, who is leaving the Pacific Gas and Electric Company after more than twenty years of service. Drina Collins has helped the company and the community through countless crises: floods, mudslides, fires and more. Ms. Collins has been the tirelessly cheerful and efficient public face of PG&E for San Jose and Santa Clara County since long before the area was known as the Silicon Valley. During her tenure in the Government Relations department of Pacific Gas and Electric, Ms. Collins managed the public affairs programs, answering questions from customers and elected officials alike with accuracy and enthusiasm. A glance at Drina Collins' resume reveals a lifelong commitment to Santa Clara County. Before beginning her job at Pacific Gas & Electric she served as the Chief of Staff for the Honorable Dom Cortese, a Santa Clara County Supervisor. She is currently the Chairperson of the Santa Clara County Redistricting Committee 2000 and the Silicon Valley Economic Development Corporation. Ms. Collins serves on the board of the San Jose Conservation Corps and the Guadalupe River Park and Gardens Corporation. Drina Collins has a knowledge of and love for Santa Clara County that is unmatched, and we know she will be much missed at PG&E. Moreover, we want to say that we are both grateful to her for her caring friendship and wise counsel through our careers, which we are confident will continue through the years. Our families wish her nothing but the best in the next chapter of her life.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Dr. TJ Owens, Vice President of Student Services, who is retiring this month after 10 years of service to the students of Gavilan Community College in Gilroy, CA. Dr. Owens will be much missed by the students, faculty and administration of Gavilan College. Dr. TJ Owens began his career as a teacher in Barstow, California, after earning his degree from Fresno State. Upon completion of his Masters Degree in Counseling and Guidance Education, he served as the Assistant Dean and then the Dean of Student Services at San Jose City College, which is when I first met him. He became the Vice President of Student Services at Gavilan Community College in 1981. Dr. Owens' commitment to the community, and to education, runs deep: he is a board member of the Gilroy Unified School District and the Gilroy Gang Task Force. He also chairs the Charles, Sr. and Ernestine Williams Foundation. He belongs to the Association of California Community College Administrators, the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, and the California Community College Chief Student Services Association. I want to thank Dr. TJ Owens for his friendship, and for his dedication to Gilroy and to Gavilan College, and to wish him all the best in the next phase of his life.

Ms. LOFGREN

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. 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.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

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 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.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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. 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.

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. 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. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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. 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.

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.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

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).

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Billy DeFrank Lesbian and Gay Community Center of San Jose. On April 28th, the DeFrank Center will celebrate 20 years of service to the Santa Clara Valley. The DeFrank Center opened on Keyes Street in downtown San Jose in 1981. Services in what was then a 2 room storefront included a hotline, counseling, and a switchboard. Today, the Billy DeFrank Lesbian and Gay Center serves a large and diverse community. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of all ages and backgrounds find resources here that are not available elsewhere. Each month over a thousand people visit the DeFrank Center's headquarters, and many more call the switchboard. Over 140 meetings, workshops, health programs and special events take place at the DeFrank Center each month. I am proud of the caring staff and corps of volunteers whose dedication has built the Billy DeFrank Lesbian and Gay Community Center. It is because of their hard work that the DeFrank Center is ``a place to call home,'' and I thank them for their 20 years of service to our community.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the Lofgren-Conyers Amendment, the ``Motherhood Protection Act of 2001,'' is an overall substitute to the committee bill, the ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001,'' H.R. 503, and creates a crime for any violent or assaultive conduct against a pregnant woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy and makes any interruption punishable by a fine and imprisonment up to twenty years but, if the pregnancy is terminated, punishable by a fine and imprisonment up to life. Amendment to H.R. 503, as Reported Offered by Ms. Lofgren of California Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Beryl Hampton Kilgore, a 75-year resident of San Jose. Beryl Kilgore will be celebrating her 100th birthday on March 31, 2001. Beryl Hampton was born on March 31, 1901 in Forbestown in northern California. She married Charles Kilgore in 1920 and they had two daughters, Martha Miller and Norma Mencacci. The Kilgore family moved to San Jose in 1926 and Mrs. Kilgore has resided there since that time. Beryl Hampton Kilgore has been a treasured resident of the Chai House since 1996 and is beloved by all who know her. I join my voice to the many others offering congratulations to this wonderful woman on her 100th birthday. I wish her nothing but happiness on this joyous occasion and the best to her and her family in the coming year.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Asian Americans for Community Involvement (AACI), which is celebrating 28 years of service to the people of Santa Clara County. Asian Americans for Community Involvement is the largest nonprofit advocacy, education, health and human service organization committed to the welfare of Asian Pacific Islander Americans in Santa Clara County. The 28th Anniversary Celebration Banquet will help the organization celebrate its years of service to the Asian Pacific Islander community. The Community Star Award will be presented to selected individuals whose dedication and hard work have enhanced the quality of life for Asian Americans. The proceeds from the banquet will allow Asian Americans for Community Involvement to continue their community, health and human service projects in the Asian Pacific Islander communities in Santa Clara County. Asian Americans for Community Involvement provides an ever-growing number of services for people who have come to rely on this organization for help. Among the health and social services AACI provides are mental health services, substance abuse prevention and treatment and employment training, and programs to combat child abuse, domestic violence, HIV/AIDS, and youth gang involvement. I am grateful to Asian Americans for Community Involvement for the organization's dedicated service in Santa Clara County, and wish to congratulate each of the 2001 AACI Community Star recipients.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I with my colleague from California, Mr. Honda, wish to congratulate the Women's Fund of Silicon Valley, on the occasion of the 2001 Annual Women of Achievement Awards. The Women's Fund of Silicon Valley is a non-profit organization that has recognized, honored and supported the work of women and girls since 1972. The Women's Fund presents annual awards to women of achievement in 14 categories: arts, communications, community service, business, education, elected public service, entrepreneurship, labor, professional, public service, science and technology, small business, sports and volunteerism. The Women's Fund has provided scholarships for training and education to help women and girls achieve their goals. The Women's Fund also generously contributes to local non-profit organizations that serve women and girls. The Women's Fund of Silicon Valley has worked on behalf of women and girls in California for almost twenty years. We are grateful to the organization and its members for making it possible for women and girls to achieve their dreams.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend to my colleagues the following articles by Joan Ryan of the San Francisco Chronicle and Patty Fisher of the San Jose Mercury News. I found these articles to be thoughtful examinations of the complex question of federal support for faith-based groups. [From the San Francisco Chronicle] With a Hand on the Bible (By Joan Ryan) Even as a Christian I felt uneasy when George W. Bush said during his campaign that Jesus was the most influential philosopher on his political beliefs. The feeling returned during Bush's inauguration when he again wandered, either carelessly or purposefully, into the dangerous ground between church and state. Inaugurations traditionally mention God in the context of a higher power recognized by most of the world's religions. But Bush's hand-picked pastors mentioned Jesus in both the invocation and prayer. one pastor punctuated the point with the unequivocal proclamation, ``Jesus the Christ (is) the name that's above all other names.'' Now comes news that Bush wants to disburse billions in public funds to religious groups that provide social services. The groups would compete for the money, and Bush's new ``Office of Faith-Based and Community-Based Initiatives'' would choose the recipients. All religions would be eligible, Bush said. Everyone who believes that certain religious groups will be getting significantly more of this money than others, say, ``Amen.'' Bush has already shown that he won't fund groups that don't adhere to his particular set of moral beliefs. In his first full workday as president, he announced he was yanking funds to overseas organizations that use their own money to provide abortions or abortion counseling. These organizations were not breaking the laws of their countries or of ours. Bush's decision was based solely on his own And Bush's call for a review of the FDA's approval of the abortion pill, RU-486, was not based on science or health but, again, his own brand of morality. This is the problem with blurring the line between church and state, as Bush is doing. We begin to create a de facto national religion based on the values of those in power. These values might be perfectly respectable ones. They might even have the power to transform lives, as Bush's religious program in a Texas prison has. (Compared to non-participating inmates, inmates in the two-year indoctrination in biblical teachings and Christian behavior have shown a drastically lower recidivism rate once released from prison.) It's difficult to argue that the world wouldn't be a better place if everyone adhered to so-called Christian values. But who should interpret how those values will be applied to public policy? Ralph Reed? Jesse Jackson? The pope? All adhere to the same Bible, but each man's vision of government based on the book's teachings would be vastly different--and would feel like a tyranny to those who disagreed. The infusion of religion into government is at the very heart of the revolution that created America. The colonists rebelled not only against the Church of England but also against the Puritanism and Calvinism that forced the citizenry to conform to particular religious views of face the government's wrath. What Bush risks doing is establishing the legitimacy of one religion over all others, and this is just what our founding fathers didn't want. Yet there hasn't been much of an outcry. Perhaps people figure it's better to have a president who thinks he's the national deacon than one who thought he was the national Don Juan. All would agree that the president should be guided by high morals. And one would hope that, if he is deeply religious, he could harness the power of his faith for the public good. But when Bush laid his hand on the Bible two Sundays ago, he didn't promise to uphold the teachings of Jesus. He promised to uphold the Constitution of the United States.