Zoe Lofgren

Mr. LOFGREN

Mr. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to congratulate Mr. Lewis E. Platt, Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Hewlett-Packard Company, who is retiring after six years as Chairman of the Board and 33 years of service to the Hewlett-Packard Company. A friend and a neighbor in Silicon Valley from the beginning of his tenure with HP, Lew Platt has understood the importance both of giving back to the community that has given so much to his company and of improving the cities in which he lives and does business. In 1996 Mr. Platt was elected Co-chair, along with San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales, of the Joint Venture Silicon Valley (Calif.) Network, an organization formed in 1991 to strengthen the local economy and make the area a better place in which to live. Yet by far, Mr. Platt's greatest contributions to my constituents in Silicon Valley and to the nation as a whole have come through the educational programs he has established and sponsored through Hewlett- Packard, aiding students at all levels of school. Lewis Platt has focused HP's national efforts around three stated company goals: significantly improving K-12 science and math achievements, increasing the number of women and minorities studying and teaching science and mathematics, and ensuring that all children are ready to learn when they begin school. These platitudes might ring hollow were they not backed by substantive action, but under Mr. Platt's guidance Hewlett-Packard has established a tremendous philanthropy program in order to truly provide help to students of all ages. Because of Lew Platt's efforts and commitment, HP currently donates approximately $55 million each year to education, with $8 million going towards K-12 education. In my district, for instance, Hewlett-Packard has helped sponsor the San Jose Diversity in Education Partnership with San Jose State University, East Side Union High School District and Alum Rock Elementary School District. This initiative aims to increase the number of students who are prepared for college and interested in careers in engineering, and has worked with HP's Email Mentor Program, another initiative begun under Lew Platt, encouraging 5th through 12th graders to remain interested in math and science. Mr. Platt has also helped establish a partnership between Hewlett- Packard and Independence, Silver Creek, and Overfelt High Schools in San Jose to encourage students to stay in school and continue their education after graduation from high school. The benefits of Lew Platt's belief in education, however, stretch far beyond the neighborhood of Hewlett-Packard's corporate headquarters in California. Under the guidance of Mr. Platt, Hewlett-Packard has undertaken and funded similar educational initiatives in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Idaho, Georgia, Maryland, Delaware, and Massachusetts. These broad educational efforts, which have meant so much to my constituents and to students across the country, have in many ways been a direct result of Lew Platt's vision, and for this all people who care about the education of our children owe him a debt of gratitude. Wrote Mr. Platt in an open company letter, ``At HP, we recognize that supporting education is one of the most important things we can do to realize success for future generations, for our company, and for society as a whole.'' Lew Platt's corporate achievements at the Hewlett-Packard Company will be long remembered, the successes of the children he helped educate through HP will remain as an even stronger living reminder of the fine work he has done.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In conclusion of this debate, I am hopeful that this Lofgren-Conyers substitute is in fact adopted by this body. Now, there are some who argue that up to a life sentence is too harsh for the perpetrator of violence on a woman who would then miscarry, but I know that that is not the case. When one miscarries and loses a wanted opportunity to become a mother, that is something you remember your whole life. That is something that is a grievous harm and a terrible blow. It seems to me that someone who would perpetrate that violence and that harm on a woman ought to face that kind of harsh penalty. So I urge those who have qualms about the severity of the penalty included in the substitute, to look at it from the woman's point of view and to understand that while we believe that a woman's right to reproductive freedom includes her right not to have a child, choice also means the right to have a child, and if you are pregnant and you want that child, those who would assault you and who would either engage in a prenatal injury or cause you to miscarry have interfered with your choice, your right to become a parent and to enjoy all the things that those of us who are mothers do enjoy, which is to watch our children grow and to help them become ever more responsible citizens. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the substitute and a ``no'' vote on the Canady bill.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to apprise my colleagues of the communication just received from the Office of the President, a statement of administration policy. ``The Administration,'' and I quote ``strongly opposes enactment of H.R. 2436 which would make it a separate Federal offense to cause `death or bodily injury' to a `child in utero','' and those phrases are in quotes, ``in the course of committing certain specified federal crimes. If H.R. 2436 were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.'' The statement continues as follows: ``The administration has made the fight against domestic violence and other violence against women a top priority. The Violence Against Women Act, which passed with the bipartisan support of Congress in 1994, marked a critical turning point in our national effort to address domestic violence and sexual assault. The Violence Against Women Act for the first time created Federal domestic violence offenses with strong penalties to hold violent offenders accountable. To date, the Department of Justice has brought 179 Violence Against Women Act and Violence Against Women Act related federal indictments and awarded over $700 million in grants to communities to assist in combating violence against women. ``Unfortunately, H.R. 2436 is not designed to respond to violence against women. The Administration has significant public policy concerns with the legislation, as was described by the Department of Justice's letter to the House Committee on the Judiciary on September 9, 1999. For example, H.R. 2436 would: (1) trigger an excessive increase in the length of sentence as compared with the sentence that would otherwise be imposed for injury to a woman who is not pregnant; (2) depart from the traditional rule that criminal punishment should correspond to the knowledge and intent of the defendants; and, this is the more serious problem, (3) identify a fetus as a separate and distinct victim of a crime, which is unprecedented as a matter of Federal statute, and unnecessary to achieve the goal of increasing the punishment for violence against pregnant women. ``H.R. 2436 is, in fact, careful to recognize that abortion-related conduct is constitutionally protected; however, this does not remove all doubt about the bill's constitutionality, as explained by the Department of Justice letter to the House Committee on the Judiciary on September 9, 1999.'' The Administration strongly opposes this bill, H.R. 2436. They recognize, and so state, that I will ``offer an alternative that,'' in the Administrations opinion, ``appropriately focuses on increasing the punishment for violence against pregnant women without identifying the fetus as a separate and distinct victim of a crime.'' I am hopeful that my colleagues in the House will listen carefully to this Statement of the Administration's policy and come together to support the substitute that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and I will offer that will allow for tough sentences, that will deter violence against women, that will allow up to a life sentence to punish those who would commit the odious crime of assaulting a woman and causing her to miscarry, and that we do this together instead of continuing to divide this Congress and this Nation over the very emotional issue of reproductive choice.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that neither the bill nor the substitute would apply to the instances of violence just referenced, because those are State offenses and there is no Federal predicate. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy). (Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote some of the editorial that ran in the New York Times on September 14. The editorial is entitled ``On a Dangerous Path to Fetal Rights.'' The New York Times points out: ``Congressional opponents of abortion rights have come up with yet another scheme to advance their agenda. Called the `Unborn Victims of Violence Act,' . . . the measure aims to chip away at women's reproductive freedom by granting new legal status to `unborn children'--under the deceptively benign guise of fighting crime. . . . ``No one would quarrel that an attack on a pregnant woman that results in a miscarriage or prevents normal fetal development is a tragedy. Extra severe penalties in such cases may be appropriate. But that can be done by prosecuting a defendant for assaulting the pregnant woman. The pending bill, however, treats the woman as a different entity from the fetus--in essence raising the status of a fetus to that of a person for law enforcement purposes--a longtime goal of the right- to-life movement. ``The bill contains exceptions for medical treatment and legal abortions. That has allowed the bill's sponsors to assert that the measure has nothing to do with the abortion issue. But that view is disingenuous. By creating a separate legal status for fetuses, the bill's supporters are plainly hoping to build a foundation for a fresh legal assault on the constitutional underpinnings of the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. Sending the nation down a legal path that could undermine the privacy rights of women is not a reasonable way to protect women or to deter crime.'' I could not agree with that more. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, neither Congress nor the United States Supreme Court has ever afforded legal status to an unborn child, and it is undisputed, I think, that H.R. 436 would be the first such congressional recognition. Similarly, there is no precedent in the history of the Supreme Court for such a rule. In the 26 years since Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court has never recognized an unborn child as having legal status. Outside of the abortion context, the Court has been asked only twice to uphold a State's determination that an unborn child should be afforded the protection of the law, and those two cases, Burns v. Alcala and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, are the only two cases in the 26 years since Roe, in which the Supreme Court has been asked to recognize the ``unborn child'' as having legal status. In both cases, the Supreme Court refused to do so. Those of us who are here today standing up for the personal right of a woman to determine her own reproductive future are very concerned and very opposed to this bill. I have heard the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution go on at some length about how this really would not disturb Roe v. Wade, and I do not agree. But I would also like to point out that the chairman and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the committee, opposed Roe v. Wade. That is their right to do so. The gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) said today earlier that he opposed abortion in all cases, including cases of rape and incest. I do not agree with him, but I respect that that is his position. In fact, if it were up to the chairman, he would repeal Roe v. Wade, and I think this is part of the strategy to go down that road. We do not see it the same way, and I wish that we could have that debate in a different context, not in the context of violence against women, because, in fact, after we have finished debate on this bill, I will be offering a substitute with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that would achieve the goal that is allegedly being sought here today, which is protection of women who are pregnant against assault that might impair or damage their pregnancy. We can do that together, if that is in fact our goal. I think that goal is a worthy one. I would urge that we do so and that we reserve the debate over reproductive choice for another time, another day, a different vehicle, and that we be very open about what the dispute is about. If opponents of reproductive choice for American women want to bring this issue to a conclusion, they ought to bring a pro-life constitutional amendment to this floor.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2436 creates a separate Federal criminal offense for harm to, quote, an unborn child, with the legal status separate from that of the woman. The Lofgren-Conyers substitute creates a separate Federal criminal offense for harm to a pregnant woman. The underlying bill recognizes, quote, a member of the species Homo sapiens at all stages of development as a victim of crime, from conception to birth. This affords even an embryo legal rights equal to and separate from those of the woman. The Lofgren-Conyers substitute recognizes the pregnant woman as the primary victim of a crime. The substitute creates an offense that protects women and punishes violence resulting in injury or termination of a pregnancy. It provides for a maximum 20-year sentence for injury to a woman's pregnancy and up to a life sentence for termination of a woman's pregnancy. It requires a conviction for the underlying criminal offense and focuses on the harm to the pregnant woman, providing a deterrent against violence against women. This amendment is simple. Offered by the ranking member and myself, it recognizes that there are existing crimes in Federal law that protect women from violence such as violent assault. This amendment recognizes that when such crimes not only hurt the woman but also cause her to miscarry, there is additional harm to that woman. This amendment enhances the sentence one can receive for causing this additional harm to up to a life sentence. Why is it important for us to pass this amendment for this crime and to impose this penalty? What can compare to giving birth to a child long awaited and then raising that child through all the challenges humankind face? Those of us who are mothers know that it is the most important thing in our lives, and those of us who have suffered a miscarriage know the incredible trauma and the overwhelming sense of loss that is involved. An assailant who hurts a woman in this way deserves to be severely punished, but the bill before us, let us be clear, was not really about that. It was simply another attempt to cut away at the rights of women to determine their own reproductive choices. The men who have promoted the underlying bill are, I believe, sincere in their zealotry on behalf of their cause, namely that the government makes the choice of whether or not a woman gives birth, not the woman. Now I do not agree with that position, but I do recognize that that is what their bill is about. That is why anti-choice activists are calling Members of the House to urge a yes vote on the underlying bill and a no vote on this substitute. That is why, although dressed up as a crime bill, the underlying bill was never reviewed by the Subcommittee on Crime. No, it was a product of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. The underlying bill advances the political cause while overlooking what really matters to the mothers of America. Indeed, if someone violently assaults a pregnant woman and that woman miscarries and loses the child she so much desires, that is indeed a great offense. That is why I offer this substitute to the bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady). Assaults that cause a woman to miscarry, that cause the suffering that other women and I personally have felt, that destroy the hope that that pregnant woman has, are offenses of such dire consequence that they must be considered extraordinary. A wanted and hoped-for child lost to miscarriage, whether through violence or fate, is an injury to the woman who would be a mother that is monumental and everlasting. If the goal in criminal law is ever properly vengeance, then this loss calls out for vengeance. If the goal is justice, then contrast the proposed penalty for this grievous injury to a woman with other offenses deemed worthy of up to a maximum sentence of life. The accused may be sentenced up to life for exploiting children, for drug trafficking, for aggravated sexual assault of an under age child and for many other crimes. I offer this substitute that would recognize the crime and impose this penalty for anyone who would assault a pregnant woman if that assault interrupts her pregnancy or causes her to miscarry. Assault is already a crime but the loss to someone who is carrying and expecting a child is a significant difference and should be acknowledged at law. The substitute focuses on what is real for American women. Oppose violence against women. Do not use that violence as an excuse to eliminate personal choice about reproduction for American women. Women in America need protection against violence. They may also need protection against those in the majority of this Congress who want to tell them what to do with their lives and who think it is acceptable to use the tragedy of miscarriage to advance the political goal of repealing reproductive rights. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).