Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Valery (Lawrence) Weinberg, President, Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of Novoye Russkoye Slovo. On May 8th Mr. Weinberg will be celebrating 40 years of service at Novoye Russkle Slovo (New Russian Word). Novoye Russkoye Slovo is the oldest and most widely read Russian-language daily newspaper in the United States.

Born in the Ukraine in 1945, Mr. Weinberg emigrated first to Poland, and then to the United States in 1964--the same year he began his career at Novoye Russkoye Slovo. From 1964-1982 he held numerous positions at the paper. He was named Executive Vice President in 1982 and President in 1986. In 1995, Mr. Weinberg founded and became President of People's Wave Radio (WYDM 1380-AM), the only 24-hour, seven-day-a-week Russian-Language radio station in the world.

Under Mr. Weinberg's leadership, Novoye Russkoye Slovo played an important role in bringing democracy to the Soviet Union by supporting Russian dissidents and publishing their work. Former presidents from both political parties, including President Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, have acknowledged Novoye Russkoye Slovo anniversaries and noted the newspaper's part in helping new immigrants adapt to life in the United States and understand U.S. policy and democracy.

After the collapse of communism, the Russian government honored Mr. Weinberg for his and the paper's support of freedom and democracy. In 2000, he received an award from former President Boris Yeltsin celebrating the paper's 90th anniversary. In 2003 he was honored at an event in Moscow for his efforts to preserve Russian culture in the United States.

Mr. Weinberg is also a well-known philanthropist in the Russian- American community. He is the founder and President of the UJA- Federation Russian Division, which raises funds for economically disadvantaged Russian Jews worldwide. With his wife Lilly, Mr. Weinberg helped raise funds to build several projects in Israel, including a school for disabled children. In addition to his work the UJA, Mr. Weinberg is President of the Fund for the Neediest Russian Immigrants. The fund was instrumental in building an emergency room and hospital in Israel, and was active in providing assistance to Russian-American victims of September 11th. Finally, Mr. Weinberg also serves as President of Litfundt, which provides assistance for Russian-American artists and writers.

I am pleased to stand here today to congratulate Mr. Weinberg for his 40 years of service to the Russian-American community and thank him for his commitment to freedom and democracy. He is a man of integrity and drive, and I wish him all the best now and in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my constituent, Itche Goldberg on the occasion of his 100th birthday. Itche is at once a leader, scholar and educator, yet he still remains a student. It is rare to encounter a man who has achieved as much as Itche has, but that is not what truly makes Itche unique. What sets Itche apart from those few who can match his accomplishments is his continued passion to learn, explore and delve further into the subjects he studies. The greatest beneficiary of Itche's work has never been Itche himself, but rather those who have had the pleasure of reading his works and the work he has translated and for the important role he has played in preserving the Yiddish language.

Itche began his path of scholarship in Canada, where he studied philosophy, political economics and German. At the age of twenty, he was already teaching in the Toronto Workmen Circle Folkshul, the first step onto a path of instruction that extended to Philadelphia and New York as well. His lectures have been in both Yiddish and English, covering Jewish culture and literature. From 1970 to 1985, Itche was professor of Yiddish language and literature at Queens College of the City University of New York.

From 1936 to 1951, Itche edited Yungvarg, a Yiddish children's magazine, and others for both parents and teachers. During that time, he wrote many children's stories in Yiddish. Also among Itche's work are numerous Yiddish textbooks he authored, and even more he edited. As Director of the Service Bureau for Jewish Education and the Zhitlowsky Foundation, Itche's mission was to make sure these books were not only produced, but also provided to their target audiences in Jewish secular schools. Itche was also recently awarded the prestigious Raoul Wallenberg medal.

Today, Itche goes to the office every day to ensure that the journal he is editor-in-chief of, Yiddishe Kultur, sees continued life. Even after forty years on the job, he remains tirelessly devoted to the endurance of one of the few surviving quality journals published in Yiddish language worldwide.

In a society such as ours, which values hard work, education and culture, Itche Goldberg is priceless. A child wishing to study Yiddish culture can turn to Itche's work at every stage of life; whether it is his children's stories, textbooks, journals or upcoming second volume of essays. Itche is an asset to us all, and I feel privileged to honor him for his profound contributions towards the preservation of Yiddish, and for doing so with such an inspiring passion. Mir shatsn op ayer vunderlekhe arbet l'toyves der yidisher kultur vos hot baraikhert dem gontsn Yidishn yishev. (English Translation ``We honor your wonderful work for the benefit of Yiddish culture which enriches all of Yiddish heritage.'')

Mr. Speaker, the President, as you can see from the poster, said at his press conference last week that he was not aware of any mistakes that he had made. Let me tell my colleagues and him a few mistakes he has made, three major mistakes:

First, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush administration chose deliberately to mislead the people of New York about the safety of the air and the environment in the aftermath of that disaster. We now know from the Inspector General of EPA's report that the White House instructed the EPA to mislead the people of New York. The former administrator of EPA, Mrs. Whitman, said 2 days after the disaster the air is safe to breathe, when they had no test data to show that.

Because of that misleading, Federal, State, and city government followed policies that have resulted in catastrophe. We now know from recent medical reports that an absolute majority, most of the first responders, the heroes, the fire officers, the police officers, the construction workers who descended on Lower Manhattan to help with the rescue operations, most of them now, 2\1/2\ years later, have serious respiratory disorders which will probably plague them for the rest of their lives. We know that women who live within a mile, 1.6 kilometers, of the World Trade Center, today are giving birth to low birth weight babies at twice the natural rate because the White House chose to mislead the American people.

Second, the White House chose to get us into a useless, stupid war in Iraq to divert our attention from the war against us by the Islamic terrorists. We know that there were no weapons of mass destruction, contrary to what they told us in Iraq, no great stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. We know the Iraqi people did not, as the White House told us they would, greet our troops as liberators. We know that when the President stood there before the sign and said mission accomplished and said that major combat was over, he was wrong. We know this administration did not plan adequately for an occupation. We know they sent too few troops there to properly secure the country. We know they fired General Shinseki because he had the impudence to say the truth in advance. We know that they disbanded the Iraqi army without having enough troop strength to replace it and they are now trying to reassemble it.

We know, in short, they got us into a quagmire and so thoroughly alienated

the rest of the world by the arrogant attitude of this administration that we cannot get any significant help, we cannot internationalize the conflict, we cannot share the burdens or at least we cannot do these things as long as George Bush is President because no one trusts him abroad anymore.

But perhaps the greatest mistake that this administration has made is that this administration has not and does not take seriously enough the terrorist war being waged against us by the Islamic terrorists. From before 9/11, when this administration ignored many warnings, to this very day, they refuse to spend the money necessary to protect the American people. Two months after 9/11, leaders in Congress proposed to spend $10 billion to protect our chemical and nuclear facilities and our transportation terminals against attacks that could kill or wound hundreds of thousands of people. President Bush said he would veto such an appropriation. It was not done. This administration refuses to spend the money to buy the weapons grade plutonium and uranium now in the former Soviet Union that can easily be smuggled to al Qaeda to make atomic bombs because they care more about tax cuts for the wealthy than about protecting the American people. It is a mistake not to prevent al Qaeda from going nuclear by buying that plutonium and uranium quickly.

This administration inspects only 2 percent of the 6 million shipping containers that come into this country every year, any one of which could hide a chemical or biological or nuclear weapon. It is a mistake not to insist that no container is placed on a ship bound for the United States until that container is inspected and certified and sealed by an American inspection team in the foreign port.

This administration will not spend the funds to protect our commercial aviation. It is a mistake not to place a missile deflection system on every commercial airliner as the Israelis are doing by this summer so that we do not have to worry about our airlines being shot out of the sky by shoulder-fired missiles. In short, it is a mistake not to place the priority where it belongs, on protecting the American people from terrorism instead of protecting tax cuts for the wealthy.

Mr. Speaker, if the President wants to know about some mistakes, here are some mistakes. Here are some mistakes that he can correct if he is willing to protect the American people at the cost of the tax cuts for the wealthy. His major mistake is his priority. Tax cuts for the wealthy, yes. Protect the American people from terrorism, no. That is some mistake.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Isakson amendment, which would include high-priority projects as well as projects of national regional Significance within the minimum guarantee program.

Supporters of the amendment claim that by including these projects, which are really Member earmarks, in the minimum guarantee program, funding to States' core programs will be increased. The amendment, however, will actually hurt many States' core programs because Member projects are earmarked and thus not available for States to use on their existing capital plans. Under the existing legislation, California, for example, without the amendment will get its apportioned funds for use in its existing core programs plus the $1 billion it currently has in earmarks. Therefore, it makes no sense for Californians, for example, to vote for this amendment.

The amendment is also dangerous because to include projects of national significance in the minimum guarantee is to negate the entire program of projects for national significance. This category was established to fund projects that have a national significance and impact and that require a significant amount of funding. Eligible projects must be at least $500 million or 75 percent of the State's entire annual highway apportionment. If a project this size were counted against a State's allocation, the State would have virtually no money for its regular core program or existing capital plan. As a practical matter, no State would seek funding under this program.

The purpose of the program is to fund projects of national significance that normally would not get funded because of their multi- State nature or their size. These projects may be necessary because of our national trade policy or to improve national security. It makes no sense to count these projects against a State's formula allocation.

The reality, of course, is that this amendment is offered because its supporters are upset about the minimum guarantee, that it does not rise from 90.5 percent immediately. This amendment will do nothing to address that concern and will in fact punish many States in the process.

I disagree with that position. I believe the minimum guarantee should stay where it is. But if they are upset that funds are allocated 90.5 percent, why would they want to put more programs under this formula? Why not allow all States to receive funds in addition to those allocated by formula? Including projects of national significance in the minimum guarantee certainly does not help them as it has nothing to do with the donor/donee issue. Under this amendment, neither the country as a whole nor any State would be able to benefit from this program, and the whole initiative which is of national significance would be rendered useless. The money would go to waste.

This amendment undercuts much of the progress made in the underlying TEA LU bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I would rather be standing here today supporting a $375 billion transportation bill. $375 billion is what the U.S. Department of Transportation has said is necessary to meet our most basic infrastructure needs over the next 6 years. Unfortunately, the President insists that we not fund our transportation system adequately and that we not fund the hundreds of thousands of jobs that such a bill would create, but we must do what we can, and despite the funding constraints, there are many things to be proud of in the bill before us.

The committee has done a remarkable job of preserving many of the important new initiatives in TEA LU, such as safe routes to school, freight intermodal connectors and, in particular, projects of national and regional significance. At the same time, we have maintained our core highway and transit programs and increased funding for critical initiatives such as senior transportation services and the ferry boat discretionary program.

This legislation maintains the minimum guarantee funding formula established in TEA 21, but it contains a provision that essentially cuts off highway funding in fiscal year 2006 unless a law is passed in the interim raising the minimum guarantee to 95 percent, while guaranteeing States that they would receive no less than subsequent years, plus the cost of inflation.

I understand the frustration expressed on this floor by the so-called ``donor'' States. New York, as a whole, is a donor State. We send about $18 to $20 billion more to the Federal Government every year than we receive in total Federal spending. Transportation

is one of the few areas in which this is not the case.

New York has invested huge amounts of money in mass transit. Therefore, we are more energy efficient than the country as a whole. We buy less gasoline, and we pay fewer gas taxes into the Highway Trust Fund, and apparently, because we are more efficient, because we are saving the country on sending money to the Middle East, we must be punished by getting less highway funds. That is the idea of the 95 percent guarantee.

Yet, New York has a lot of transportation needs with older, aging infrastructure, and one out of every three transit riders in the country, which is capped at 15 percent. It is just not right to punish States for being energy efficient, and, therefore, I am generally opposed to this provision, but it does not do it right away. It puts off a final decision for 2 years.

Because of the many good features in the bill, I urge its enactment.

Mr. Chairman, my own State of New York is one of the most active car rental markets in the country. We also have a huge number of uninsured drivers who rent cars because, in New York City, a lot of people do not own cars. New York has forbidden car rental companies to ask their customers if they own automobile insurance in order to allow the largest number of people access to rent the cars.

Since New York has made the policy decision to mandate car rental companies to rent to uninsured drivers, New York needs vicarious liability to protect innocent bystanders who are injured by these uninsured drivers. Why should not New York and other States have the ability to make that policy determination? Why should we arrogate to ourselves to tell the 15 States that have chosen to have vicarious liability but not to limit car rentals to only people who can prove that they have their own personal insurance, that is the trade-off; why should we tell them that is the wrong policy decision? That should be left to the States.

There is nothing wrong with a State deciding that it is in the interests of the people of that State for uninsured drivers, who may be uninsured because they do not own their own cars, to be able to rent cars, but to be able to say to the car rental companies, you must take vicarious liability so that you do not shift the burden of paying for an accident to the pedestrian or the hospital or the taxpayers. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Fifteen States have chosen to do it.

To pass this amendment is to say that we are going to obviate the policy choices that those States have made and shift the burden on to innocent victims of accidents in those States. We should not do it. Let the States decide this question, as they have.

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, last year the Bush administration misled and systematically lied to the American people and to this Congress about the reasons why it said it was necessary to go into war with Iraq. We know that what they said about weapons of mass destruction, about nuclear weapons, about the biological weapons, we know all this was not true. The only question now is when they knew it was not true.

We now learn, Mr. Speaker, that the Bush administration misled this Congress deliberately and knowingly misled this Congress as to the cost of the Medicare bill by over $140 billion. We know that they threatened the actuary with being fired if he gave truthful information to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, we depend on truthful information to have democracy. Martha Stewart faces jail time for lying to the government. When are we going to hold this administration accountable for lying to the American people and to this institution so that we cannot do our work properly because we are working on false information? When are we going to appoint an independent counsel to begin to demand honesty so that we can represent the American people properly?

Mr. Speaker, I support commending our troops, but I believe the war with Iraq did not make the United States safer. We know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and no connection to al Qaeda which poses the real threat to the safety of the American people.

We know that the war in Iraq diverted resources from the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban, which is staging a resurgence in Afghanistan today. We know that the war in Iraq alienated our allies whose help and intelligence we need to fight the real threat, the Islamic terrorists. We know that the war against Iraq makes it much harder to take action, perhaps military action, if necessary, to deal with the very real potential threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

After the administration misled this House, misled the American people, and misled the world about the nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, who will believe us if we need to act against the real nuclear threat from Iran?

I believe this war made us less safe because it dealt with a phantom threat, not the real threat. It diverted resources from the real threat. This resolution is good in commending our troops, but untruthful in saying the war against Iraq made us safer. Therefore, I cannot vote for it.

I rise today to honor Camp Ramah in the Berkshires as the Ramah family celebrates its 40th anniversary.

Camp Ramah provides our community's youngsters a unique opportunity to interweave exposure to the beautiful countryside of the Berkshires with education in Jewish values and practice. The benefit of such experience is precious, and I commend Camp Ramah's continued efforts to extend that benefit to all children, regardless of economic limitations. The future of our community depends upon programs and experiences like those provided by Camp Ramah, which has a long history of cultivating knowledge and leadership in our community's youth.

As Camp Ramah prepares to open its doors for the 40th time, I would like to commend those special honorees, Dr. Charles and Barbara Mann and Rabbi Paul and Martha Resnick, who have done so much for the camp and the values that it embodies. It is from teachers like Mr. Mann and Rabbi Resnick that the leaders of tomorrow gain the encouragement, enrichment, and values that they will need to make our future the best it can be. I send my warmest congratulations to the honorees, and thank them for their years of service.

I wish Camp Ramah's extended family of friends and supporters a wonderful evening of entertainment and celebration, and I join you in wishing for the camp 40 more successful years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Actors' Equity Association, in honor of its 90 years of contributions to the American theater.

Since 1913, Actors' Equity Association has fought for better wages, working conditions, and pension and health benefits for actors and stage managers. Equity has fostered and stimulated the art of live theater and contributed to the health of the American theatrical community. In particular, Actors' Equity plays an important role in the Broadway industry, in the heart of my district, which contributes $4 billion annually to the economy of New York City and depends greatly on the talent and professionalism of Equity's members.

Throughout Actors' Equity's distinguished history, it has built a proud tradition of contributing to the overall good of our society and community by: fighting against segregation, blacklisting and discrimination; supporting funding for the arts; and spearheading fundraising for charities such as Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS.

In addition, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City, Equity came together with other theatrical unions to keep Broadway shows up and running, helping New York City recover.

The hard work and talent of the more than 45,000 members of Actors' Equity Association contribute to the arts and to their communities in cities and theaters across the country. Actors' Equity Association is committed to ensuring these members are treated with dignity and respect, and that the art of live theater continues to flourish.

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to applaud Equity's ongoing efforts to uphold the highest artistic standards of live theater in the United States. I commend Actor's Equity for all of its good work and offer my sincerest congratulations upon reaching this milestone.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. The World War II internment of American citizens of Japanese, German and Italian ancestry for no reason other than their heritage is a disgraceful blot on the history of this Nation and on our commitment to freedom and equality. Sometimes, in times of panic and insecurity, we have forgotten what is best and most admired about our Nation and we have done things which in retrospect and with cooler heads we have come to realize were both unnecessary and unjust. This unfortunate history includes the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during

the Civil War, the Espionage Act of 1917, the Smith Act of 1940, the Japanese, German and Italian internments, the McCarthy depredations of the early Cold War years, the COINTELPRO operations of the FBI, and some of what is going on today.

We are regrettably going through another period of fear and insecurity due to the very real threat of terrorism. We must not give in to fear and we must not repeat the sin of trampling civil liberties in ways that purport to, but do not even, add to our own security. But I fear we are yet again doing just that.

There is no greater way to honor those many loyal Americans who suffered injustices during World War II than to rededicate ourselves to fighting for the principles that this history teaches, to remembering this history, to passing this resolution but to try to avoid repeating this history as I fear we are doing in some of the things that are going on in this time of insecurity today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), the sponsor of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Hawaii.

(Mr. CASE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, over 60 years ago, at a time of panic and insecurity, this country committed a great wrong against people of Japanese, Italian and German background. Several years ago, the United States apologized for this, voted monetary compensation, and today we are passing a resolution supporting the goal of recognizing a day of national remembrance to increase public awareness of these events.

It is right and fitting that we should do this, and we should pass this resolution. I hope and I pray that as we increase public awareness of these events, we will learn from it, so that we do not repeat the same kind of actions as we have done in the past at times of insecurity and panic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday morning I was in Jerusalem, and I was within 100 yards of a bus on the number 14 route when a bomb was set off by the Alexa Brigades which are affiliated with the Fattah movement chaired by Chairman Arafat. The bomb was timed to destroy a bus and the people on it during the rush hour when schoolchildren were going to school, when men and women were going to work. Eight people, including two high school students, were killed, over 50 wounded. Chairman Arafat's group later claimed credit for this ``successful military operation.'' That was in Arabic. Later during the day, of course, he condemned it in English.

Mr. Speaker, the bomber came in through a gap in the security fence which has not yet been built. The Israelis must finish that fence as a pure defensive reaction. To criticize the Israelis for building a security fence when any other country that was under the kind of sustained terror attack that Israel is under would not be building a security fence, but would be attacking with bombs and missiles, is the height of hypocrisy. Frankly, it reminds me of the criticisms of the Czechs in 1938 for endangering the peace of Europe by getting in the way of the peaceful territorial demands of Chancellor Hitler of Europe.

The Israelis should be applauded for trying to stop this carnage and the murder of civilians, not by invasion and by bombs and missiles, but simply by a security fence; and we ought to support it, and we ought to hail the Israelis for their restrained reaction instead of allowing hypocrites to, in effect, support the campaign of terror by opposing completion of the fence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Here we are again to consider a bill which has now, for three Congresses, unnecessarily mired what should be a laudable and uncontroversial effort to punish truly heinous crimes in the emotionally charged and legally suspect back allies of the abortion debate. This is regrettable, Mr. Speaker, because real people are suffering real harm, while this House has played abortion politics instead of acting to punish truly barbaric crimes.

The issue today is straightforward: Is it or is it not necessary to enact a bill making a statement endorsing the controversial and legally revolutionary notion that a fetus is a legal person from the moment of conception in order to punish these criminals with the severity that they justly deserve?

That is the heart of the issue. The proponents of this bill are taking what should be a straightforward issue and unnecessarily turning it into a controversial one.

Why does this matter? Quite simply, because if the law recognizes that a fetus is a legal person from the moment of conception, as this bill would do, when it is a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, a simple collection of undifferentiated cells, then the law must recognize and protect the rights of that person on a legal basis with the rights of the adult pregnant woman. If our laws recognize that, then there can be no right to choose, because, logically, terminating a pregnancy even in its earliest stages would be killing a fully legal person.

So when the proponents tell you that this is not about the right to choose, this is not about the right to have an abortion, remember that very simple and clear fact. And, remember that we have an alternative that is just as tough on these criminals: the Lofgren substitute. We do not have to choose between an assault on Roe v. Wade and permitting these heinous criminals to walk free.

That is a false choice, but I do not ask my colleagues to believe me. Take the proponents at their word.

Senator Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a sponsor of this bill in the other body, had this to say, ``They say it undermines abortion rights. It does, but that's irrelevant.'' CNN, May 7 last year.

January 19 last year, Samuel B. Casey, executive director of the Christian Legal Society, told the Los Angeles Times, ``In as many areas as we can, we want to put on the books that the embryo is a person. That sets the stage for a jurist,'' a judge, ``to acknowledge that human beings at any stage of development deserve protection, even protection that would trump a woman's interest in terminating a pregnancy.''

May 19 last year, Dr. Joe Cook, vice president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, ``We have to approach this in a way that's doable, a step at a time. This bill is aimed at establishing that a fetus in utero is a human being and has human rights.''

So please do not insult our intelligence by saying this bill is not about abortion rights.

The proper question is not whether we will recognize a separate or a new crime, but how we will do so. The Lofgren substitute recognizes a special kind of evil embodied in these crimes, but would recognize the assault on the fetus as a second crime against the pregnant woman, a second, separate crime, but against the pregnant woman, not against the fetus. The distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution criticized that point of view as the ``ideology of those who are unwilling to recognize the unborn child in the law.'' Precisely. That is the threat to Roe, and despite the disclaimers in the bill and the disclaimers of the distinguished chairman a few minutes ago, that is what we are talking about today.

If a fetus is recognized as a legal person, then this bill would open the door to barring abortions, to prosecuting women or to restraining them physically for the sake of the fetus. Some courts and State governments have already experimented with this approach. The last time we had occasion to consider this bill, the Supreme Court had just struck down a practice in the then-sponsor's home State of South Carolina in which a hospital would give the result of pregnant women's blood tests to local law enforcement for the purpose of initiating legal action against those women who might take action that might in some way endanger the fetus. Once we recognize even a zygote, two cells, as having the same legal status as the pregnant woman, it would logically follow that her liberty could be restricted to protect its interests. The whole purpose of Roe is to say that her liberty interests trump the interests of the fetus. This bill says exactly the opposite.

For those of us who are prochoice, the right to choose extends not just to a woman's right to have an abortion if she wants, but also to her right to carry a pregnancy to term if she wants and to deliver a healthy baby in safety. That is why we supported the Violence Against Women Act. That is why we support programs to provide proper prenatal care and nutrition to all women. That is why we support proper health and nutrition services after a birth. That is why we support other initiatives like the Family and Medical Leave Act. We do not believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth. We have an obligation to these children and to their parents both prenatally and postnatally.

Let there be no mistake, using physical violence against a woman to prevent her from having a child that she wants is just as much an assault on the right to choose as is the use of violence against women who wish to exercise their constitutional right to choose to end their pregnancy. A woman, and only a woman, has the right to decide when and whether to bring a child into the world; not an abusive partner, not a fanatic, not even Congress.

If we are serious about this problem, and the problem of domestic violence against pregnant women, we have effective remedies at our disposal. If we want to play abortion politics, we have an appropriate vehicle, this bill, before us for that purpose.

Violence against a pregnant woman deserves strong preventive measures and stiff punishment. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, homicides during pregnancy, and in the year following birth, are the leading pregnancy-related death among women in the United States. Among nonpregnant women, it is the fifth leading cause of death.

Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace that while these preventable crimes continue to occur, Congress fiddles with largely symbolic legislation designed to interfere with the right to choose rather than taking affirmative steps to deal with this real problem. Why does this Republican-controlled Congress and White House continually refuse to fund fully and adequately the Violence Against Women Act? It appears that many of the Members who have signed on to this bill are the same ones who voted to divert funds from protecting women from violence to protecting stock dividends from taxation.

We owe it to these victims to enact strong penalties, ones which are not constitutionally suspect, to end these heinous crimes. I urge that we adopt the Lofgren substitute to make an assault that harms a fetus a second crime with just as severe or more severe penalties as with this bill, but a second crime against the women so as to not to get into the question of rights of the person to full personhood, which is, of course, the purpose of this bill, but would undermine Roe v. Wade, despite the disingenuous disclaimer of some of the other people on the other side. Let us not crowd the issue of fighting domestic violence, of fighting violence against women and pregnant women, by plunging a legitimate law enforcement effort into the murky waters of the abortion debate.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman said a moment ago that in the Innocent Child Protection Act of 2000 we made settled law the personhood of the fetus. It is not correct. In the Innocent Child Protection Act of 2000, we simply said that a pregnant woman could not be executed, and we defined a pregnant woman as someone who had a child in utero, and then defined, as the chairman said, the words ``child in utero.''

It is not what we are talking about here. For the purpose of saying you cannot execute a pregnant woman, we have defined what a pregnant woman means. That is all that bill did.

This bill seeks to establish a fetus as a separate legal person by giving it separate legal rights in order transparently to make it a separate legal person within the meaning of the 14th amendment that says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. That is exactly the opposite of what the Supreme Court said when it said we have never held a fetus to be a person in the full meaning of the term. This bill is an attempt to whittle away at that term.

The distinguished chairman of the subcommittee says we have to acknowledge the particularly heinous nature of the crime, and indeed, we do. The Lofgren substitute acknowledges the assault on the fetus as a separate crime to be separately punished, to be additionally punished, but a separate crime against the woman because her interest in carrying that pregnancy to term and bearing a healthy baby is assaulted.

It does not recognize it as a separate crime against a separate person, which is the object of this bill and what we are debating, and which is why this bill, despite the disclaimers of the proponents, is a direct assault on Roe v. Wade, a direct assault on abortion, and if all they are interested in is to make a separate crime when you assault a

fetus, when you harm a fetus, then the Lofgren substitute is perfectly adequate for that. But their aim is to damage the right to choose, and that is the real purpose of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Iowa just hit the nail on the head. He said the purpose of this bill is to recognize that there are two victims, two people involved in this. That is exactly the point of this bill, and that is exactly why we should not pass this bill without the Lofgren substitute. I am glad the previous speaker and some of the other speakers on the other side stripped away the false rhetoric on this bill. This bill is not about punishing an assault on a fetus separately; the substitute as well as the bill does that. This is not about giving it an additional punishment; the substitute as well as the bill does that.

This is about saying that there are two victims, not one victim; that the fetus or the embryo or the zygote, depending on the status of the pregnancy, is a separate legal person. That is the point of the bill. That is why we must have the substitute, why we cannot agree to the bill, because the whole point of the bill is to establish legally separate fetal personhood, which would undermine the entire rationale of Roe v. Wade and undermine a woman's right to choose, because if a fetus is a separate legal person, how can she choose to terminate the pregnancy?

This is revolutionary notion going way back to Biblical law. If we look at the original Five Books of Moses, it says very plainly if you assault a woman and she dies, you should be put to death. And if you assault a woman and she miscarries, you shall pay her monetary compensation. In other words, by killing the fetus, you have damaged an interest of the woman for which she is due compensation, but you have not committed murder as you have if you kill the born person, the woman.

So we have never in our history recognized a fetus as a separate legal person. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade specifically says we have never recognized a fetus as a separate person.

If we were to do so, then we would get into the 14th amendment question that you cannot deprive a person of life, or liberty or process, without due process of law; and that is the purpose of this bill. That is the purpose of similar bills in the State legislatures, I suspect, to give underpinning to a future Supreme Court majority to say that we recognize a fetus as a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment and, therefore, abortion is murder and, therefore, Roe v. Wade is overruled and, therefore, States have no right to legalize murder and you would need a constitutional amendment to permit abortions in this country.

That is the real point of this bill. And strip away all the disingenuous rhetoric about everything else, because everything else we agree on. We agree that there ought to be an additional penalty if you harm the fetus when you assault a woman. We agree that it should be a separate additional crime. The only question here between the bill and the substitute is should the separate additional crime for harming the fetus be a crime against the woman as we say, an additional separate crime against a woman deserving an additional separate penalty? Or should it be an additional crime against a second person, the fetus being recognized as a person?

That is the issue in this bill and this substitute. To say that it is not and to quarry the abortion debate is quite simply disingenuous. That is why the bill was introduced. That is why they are pushing it. It is why we are opposing it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida mentions various polling data that large majorities of people who are polled say that someone who attacks the woman and harms the fetus, that there are two separate crimes here. There is no dispute on that point. We agree with that. There are two separate crimes. The substitute as well as the bill in chief make it two separate crimes. That is not at issue. What is at issue is who is the victim. The substitute says it is a separate crime against the woman. Two crimes, two punishments for separate crimes against the same victim. The bill says two victims. That is the distinction here. Are there two crimes? Yes, we say. Yes, they say. Are there two victims? Yes, they say from a legal point of view. No, we say, she is the victim of a second crime because the law does not recognize the fetus as a full person.

That is what this bill seeks to do. So it is not a question of two separate slaps on the wrist. We ought to punish the crime severely. The substitute punishes the crime as severely, in some cases more severely than does the bill. The question is do you recognize one victim or two victims, because there are legal consequences, there are juridical consequences, there are consequences of undermining Roe v. Wade and the right to choose based on whether you say this fetus is a person for legal purposes or simply that you say the woman is a victim twice and we will punish it appropriately. That is the question, not whether there are two crimes.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman, first of all, I congratulate him for endorsing the right to choose. But second of all, he talked about the woman who has chosen to bear her pregnancy to term, to have a child, and an assault which destroys her fetus or damages her fetus is an assault on her right to choose, and indeed it is. He is entirely right. That is why the substitute makes the assault on her fetus a separate crime with a separate penalty against her because it is indeed an assault on her right to choose to carry that pregnancy to term, and she is the damaged party because she has lost her right to carry the pregnancy to term. She has lost her right to bear a child, and that is why in the substitute we make it an additional crime against her.

The bill, of course, makes it a separate crime against the fetus, and that is the question here.

Also, the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) quoted Exodus 21:22. He said it was 22:22, but it is 21:22. He misquoted what it said. Before I read it, let me be very clear: I did not raise this reference to the Bible because I think we ought to enact Biblical or religious law in this Chamber, far from it, but simply to show it has always been regarded, our civilization generally has regarded back to Biblical times the fetus as not having the status of a separate person.

Exodus 21:22 reads as follows: ``If men strive and hurt a woman with child so that her fruit depart from her,'' in other words, she has a miscarriage, they cause the destruction of the fetus, ``and yet no mischief follow, he shall be surely punished and he shall pay as the judges determine,'' monetary compensation. ``And if any mischief follow, then they shall give life for life.''

Now, I am not sure what the Bible means by ``mischief.'' I have an interpretation here from a rabbinical source that says it means if she dies.

But, in any event, if she does not die, if mischief does not follow, if she has a miscarriage, monetary compensation. It is only when mischief follows, when she dies, that he is guilty of a capital crime. That is precisely because at least the Bible did not consider the fetus to be a person for whose killing it is a capital crime, as killing a born person is.

Again, I cite this not because we are bound in enacting civil law to enact Biblical law, we are not, obviously, but simply to show, as I mentioned earlier, this bill, by trying to establish the fetus as a separate person for legal purposes, is a radical departure not only from Anglo-American legal traditions, but from all of Western legal traditions going way back to the Bible.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will read into the Record some letters that we have here. This bill has been represented as a bill on family violence. We have here a letter in opposition to the bill and in support of the Lofgren substitute from the Family Violence Prevention Fund. It says: ``If Congress is serious about stopping domestic violence against pregnant women and helping women and children who are victims, Members will quickly pass the Domestic Violence Screening, Treatment and Prevention Act, H.R. 1267.''

The American Association of University Women is opposed to this bill. The National Women's Law Center is opposed to this bill.

The National Council of Jewish Women is opposed to this bill in which they say that ``this bill defines an unborn child as a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development. For the first time, it gives separate legal protection to a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus and mandates penalties for harm to an unborn child equal to those mandated for harm to the woman herself. This legal definition will set a precedent that the anti-choice movement can exploit in its ongoing efforts to equate abortion with murder. And it would establish a foundation on which to build a case that the rights of fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses are apart from and superior to the rights of the women in whose bodies they develop.

``The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a sham designed to exploit the understandable public sympathy for a woman who loses her pregnancy or her life to violence in order to promote an agenda by which women will in fact lose control of their bodies to the State.'' That is from the National Council of Jewish Women.

The National Abortion Federation, the Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice, the American Civil Liberties Union, NARAL, People for the American Way, the National Organization for Women, all of these groups are concerned either about abortion rights, about reproductive rights, about women's rights, about domestic violence; and they are all opposed to this bill.

Juley Fulcher of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which is the group that for the last 25 years has led the fight for antidomestic violence legislation in the States and in the Congress, testified against this bill in our committee, and I commend her testimony to my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert all of these letters into the Record at this time.

Family Violence Prevention Fund,

Washington, DC, January, 27, 2004.

Hon. Jerrold Nadler,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Nadler: On behalf of the Family

Violence Prevention Fund, I am writing to express concern

about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, H.R. 1997, passed

by the House Judiciary Committee on January 21. We are deeply

disappointed that some are promoting this bill as a way to

end domestic violence, when better and more direct measures

to stop family violence languish in Congress year after year.

Members of Congress who want to stop abuse will put their

energy into passing the prevention and intervention measures

that offer great promise to stop violence before it starts.

The murder of Laci Peterson was an unspeakable tragedy, but

many laws designed as quick fixes have caused great harm. For

example, mandatory domestic violence health reporting laws

deter women from seeking the medical help they need. We need

to step back and consider what actually works. Our goal must

be to stop violence against all women, regardless of whether

they are pregnant.

If Congress is serious about stopping domestic violence

against pregnant women and helping women and children who are

victims, Members will quickly pass the Domestic Violence

Screening, Treatment and Prevention Act, H.R. 1267. this

essential bill would train health care providers to routinely

screen female patients for a lifetime history of abuse and

give women access to critical domestic violence services when

abuse is identified. Introduced in the House in March of 2003

by Representative Lois Capps (D-CA) and Steven LaTourette (R-

OH), this bill has the potential to prevent tragedies by

helping victims before violence escalates.

We also urge Congress to fully fund all Violence Against

Women Act programs and support legislation that would

actually prevent domestic violence before it begins. Domestic

violence prevention legislation should include services for

children who are exposed to abuse, programs that support

young families at risk of violence, and efforts to teach

young men and boys how to develop healthy, non-violent

relationships. Such legislation would do much more to stem

the tide of domestic violence than the Unborn Victims of

Violence Act.

Finally, we wish to thank you for your continued leadership

and support on this issue. As an advocate in Congress and as

one of our Founding Fathers, you truly make a difference in

the movement to end violence against women and children. If

we can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact

Kiersten Stewart in our Washington, D.C. office at 202-682-

1212.

Sincerely,

Esta Soler,

President,

Family Violence Prevention Fund.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the distinguished gentleman from Illinois for the passion he brings to this discussion, but more than that, for the clarity and honesty he brings to this discussion, for he has swept away much of the rhetoric and much of the underbrush which impedes a clear view of this and defined the real issue.

This is a bill about abortion, as he quite clearly recognizes. Both the bill and the substitute have the same practical impact. They both define two crimes. They both define the same penalties. They both have the same deterrent effect. That is not the issue, as he recognizes.

The bill defines the fetus as a person from the moment of conception. The substitute does not recognize the fetus as a person, for legal purposes, from the moment of conception. That is the difference, and that is the core of the abortion debate, as the distinguished gentleman recognizes.

The people who believe abortion to be murder believe a fetus, a zygote, a blastocyst is a person, a full human person with full and equal and legal rights from the moment of conception. We do not. We do not use the euphemism ``a right to choose'' as a euphemism for abortion. We support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion if she wishes. We support a woman's right to bear a pregnancy to term if she wishes. That is why we say we support the right to choose.

Abortion is clearly troubling emotionally and intellectually to many people. I, for one, and I can only speak personally, would find an abortion of a 9-month pregnant fetus, that is to say, a 9-month-old fetus, a horror, and I believe it is, in fact, illegal, except to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, I do not believe that a two- cell zygote after conception is a human being. I do not believe that. I believe that it has the potential. It obviously has the potential to become a human being, but it is simply two cells, and I have no compunction about an abortion of a group of cells. I do not believe it to be a human being.

That question, whether a small clump of cells or an embryo is a human being or not, is not a question that we are ever going to agree on. The chairman said the abortion debate is going to be with us forever, and I think he may be right, certainly a long time. We are not going to disagree on that question.

The difference is I respect everyone's right to their opinion, whether informed by physiology, by religion, by morality, by their concept of morality, to make that decision for themselves as to how they regard a blastocyst or a zygote. Some religions declare it a human; some religions say no. I do not think it is the job of Congress to dictate to people how to make that very personal, moral decision. I believe that decision is one which must be left to a woman.

If a woman says that, to me, as the woman, the embryo at early stage of development is a human being, and I will not have an abortion even if it risks my life, I will respect that decision. She is entitled to it. I would not support Congress coming in and saying we will save her life despite her will if she is competent because we do not agree with her moral decision. On the other hand, if she says, my moral decision is that I do not believe an early embryo or fetus is a human being and I want to have an abortion, that is her decision. I will not want Congress or the State legislature or the President to say, you are wrong morally, my moral conviction is superior to yours, and therefore, I will use the power of the State, the power of compulsion to put my moral conviction over yours. That is the debate here.

This bill is mostly a sham. The distinguished gentleman from Illinois takes the sham away and says what is really at stake, what is really the issue, and the real issue is are we going to say, which we have never said before, we had that Biblical passage

which I brought, as I said before, I do not think Congress ought to enact Biblical or religious law into civil law, but I brought it to show that in the Biblical times they did not regard a fetus as a person, because if you killed the fetus, you had monetary compensations. If the woman died, there was a capital punishment because the fetus is not regarded as a full person. That brought back, we have not regarded an Anglo-Saxon law, a Roman law up until now, a fetus as a full person.

Now, because of the abortion debate that erupted 30 years or so ago, the last 30 years, people have tried to change the law to say that we should give legal recognition to the assertion that a fetus or an embryo from the moment of conception is a person for legal purposes. We do not agree with that. This bill would do that. Therefore, we are opposed to this bill.

Some people have that opinion. Some people have that conviction. I respect the conviction. Some religions say so. I respect that. Others disagree. We should not use the power of law to impose that opinion, that theological opinion, that physiological opinion, that moral opinion on people who do not share it and wish to have abortions or other acts that may flow from that.

That is the distinction here, and this bill is an abortion bill despite not what the gentleman from Illinois said, but some other people said, because, as I said before, the consequences of the defining a second crime, the substitute would do, giving a severe penalty, giving additional penalties, are the same in the bill and the substitute. The difference is the legal underpinning, and the only reason we care about the legal underpinning is because of what it says about the key distinction underneath the legal right to an abortion and the underpinning for Roe v. Wade.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand, and I am not an expert in probate or estate law, but I do understand that as the fetus gets older, our law gives it more recognition. In fact, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade said in the first trimester the interest of the woman and her choice completely prevails, you cannot regulate abortion. In the second trimester there is more of an interest, and, therefore, you can regulate; and in the third trimester after viability, you can prohibit abortion. That is in Roe v. Wade because it recognizes that there is more interest that attaches. I do not deny that, and exactly how much attaches and so forth we can debate in a lot of contexts.

What I am saying is that the definition of the fetus or the embryo as a human being, as a person, for purposes of law in all respects, which is what this bill would do, we have never done. We do not do now, we have never done, and in my opinion we should not because it is one conception. It is a defensible proposition, but it is not a proposition that many people and religions agree with, and it is not a proposition that we should impose by Congress pro or con. I urge adoption of the substitute, not the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are here again to consider the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which has for several years unnecessarily mired what should be a laudable and uncontroversial effort to punish truly heinous crimes in the emotionally charged, and legally suspect, back alleys of the abortion debate. This is regrettable because real people are suffering real harm while this House has played abortion politics instead of punishing truly barbaric crimes.

This rule provides for consideration of this bill once again, and a reasonable substitute that will be offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). That substitute would deal harshly with the perpetrators of these crimes, in some cases more harshly than would the underlying bill itself. It would also punish these offenders without treading into constitutionally suspect territory. From day one, it would be enforceable without question. I urge my colleagues to support the substitute and to oppose the underlying bill.

For those of who are prochoice, the right to choose extends not just to a woman's right to have an abortion, but to a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term and to deliver a healthy baby in safety, if that is her choice. That is why we supported the Violence Against Women Act, that is why we support programs to provide proper prenatal care and nutrition to all women, that is why we support proper health and nutrition services after birth, and that is why we support other initiatives such as the Family and Medical Leave Act. Life does not beginning at conception and end at birth. We have an obligation to these children and parents throughout and after the pregnancy.

Let there be no mistake, using physical violence against a woman to prevent her from having a child she wants is just as much an assault on the right to choose as is the use of violence against women who exercise their constitutional right to choose to end their pregnancies. A woman and only a woman has the right to decide whether and when to bring a child into a world, not an abusive partner, not a fanatic, not a Congressman.

My colleagues should understand we are not talking here just about viable healthy fetuses who are ready to be born. This bill says ``at any stage of development.'' That means any stage, including violence to embryos, violence to zygotes, violence to a blastocyst. I do not apologize to my colleagues who have in the past taken offense to the use of the correct medical terms for the subject matter we are discussing.

We should have no illusions about the purpose of this bill, that it is yet another battle in a war of symbols in the abortion debate in which opponents of a woman's constitutional right to choose attempt to establish that fetuses, from the earliest moments of development, are persons with the same legal rights as the adult women who are carrying them. The implication is that anyone who does not share the metaphysical slant of the radical antichoice movement that a two-celled zygote is a person on exactly the same basis, and with exactly the same rights, as a child or adult must secretly favor infanticide.

This bill, by making the destruction of a fetus, or even a zygote, crime against the fetus, without any reference to the terrible harm suffered by the pregnant woman speaks volumes.

Recognizing an embryo as a legal person is at odds with Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court clearly said, ``The unborn have never been recognized in the whole sense,'' and concluded that `` `person,' as used in the 14th amendment of the Constitution, does not include the unborn.'' The rhetoric used by supporters of this bill urging that the law must ``recognize the fetus as a victim'' makes clear the purpose of this bill, which is a direct frontal assault on that holding in Roe v. Wade.

Rather than debate the abortion issue yet again, we should pass the Lofgren substitute that provides for the same severe penalties for the same terrible crimes without getting into the thorny issue of whether an embryo at 30 days of gestation is a legally recognized person. The Lofgren substitute provides for two separate crimes, one conviction for the assault and murder of the woman, and a new crime involving injury to the fetus or termination of the pregnancy. The major difference is that the Lofgren bill gives recognition to and imposes serious penalties for the additional and truly grotesque crime against the woman, not against the fetus.

If we are serious about this problem of violence against women, we have effective remedies at our disposal. If we want to play abortion politics, we have an appropriate vehicle before us to do that. Violence against a pregnant woman is first and foremost a criminal act of violence again a woman that deserves strong preventive measures and stiff punishment. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, homicides during pregnancy,

and in the year following birth, represent the leading cause of death among women in the United States. Among nonpregnant women it is the fifth leading cause of death.

Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace that while these preventable crimes continue to occur, Congress fiddles with largely symbolic legislation rather than taking affirmative steps to deal with the problem. Why has this Republican-controlled Congress and White House continually refused to fund fully the Violence Against Women Act? It appears that many of the Members who have signed on to this bill are the same ones who have voted to divert funds from protecting women from violence to protecting stock dividends from taxation.

No one who listened to the testimony we have heard in our subcommittee could be left unmoved by the murders and assaults against women who wanted nothing more than to have a child. We owe it to these women, and to those who are closest to them, to ensure that early intervention is available, and that States and localities receive the full resources of the Violence Against Women Act to prevent violence against women by intervening before the violence escalates to that level.

We must enact strong penalties which are not constitutionally suspect for these heinous crimes. We should not cloud that issue by plunging a legitimate law enforcement effort into the murky waters of the abortion debate.

Finally, this bill opens the door to prosecuting women, or restraining them physically, for the sake of a fetus. Some courts have already experimented with this approach. The last time we had occasion to consider this bill, the Supreme Court had just struck down a practice in the then sponsor's home State of South Carolina where a hospital would give the results of pregnant women's blood tests to local law enforcement for the purpose of initiating legal action against those women if they had used crack. Once we recognize a zygote, two cells, as having the same legal status as the pregnant woman, it would logically follow that her liberty could be restricted to protect it. The whole purpose of Roe was to protect that liberty interest. This bill would undermine it.

Mr. Speaker, there is a long list of people and institutions that have helped our nation flourish through our nearly 228 years of independence. One of our greatest traditions as Americans is to welcome friends from around the world into our lives--sometimes professionally and sometimes personally.

Most congressional offices host American college students, to help our nation's future leaders understand the political complexities affecting our constituents and our jobs as their representatives. Now, thanks to the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program, some of Australia's best and brightest university students have had the opportunity to participate in six-week, full-time internships in House and Senate offices. These internships have proved to be an invaluable learning experience, both for the students and for their hosts.

The program is the brainchild and pro bono non-partisan effort of former long-time House and Senate staffer Eric K. Federing, who began lecturing at Australian universities in the early 1990s while working for our former colleague Norman Y. Mineta of California. Mr. Federing wanted to bridge what Australians call ``The Tyranny of Distance,'' which can prevent Americans and Australians from knowing each other as well as our mutual interests and traditions suggest we should.

Five universities now participate and a dozen Australian students travel to Washington, DC annually as part of the program. An important reason for the exchange's success is the careful matching of students and their interests with our work and constituencies. This year, Laura Crommelin, a law student from the University of Melbourne, joined my staff for most of January and February. She is professionally poised, and sophisticated in her understanding of our mission as a chamber and my work for the 8th District of New York. Meeting Laura has given my staff and me an insight into Australian politics and society, as well as a fresh perspective on the work we are doing here in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I believe my experience has not been unique. The students and other congressional hosts in 2004 should be congratulated for their participation in this exchange: Richard Abraham, of Macquarie University, in the office of Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut; Kirstin Ferguson, of the University of Wollongong, in the office of Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida; Netta Goussac, of the University of Western Australia, in the office of Representative Loretta Sanchez of California; Elli Jacovides, of the University of Melbourne, in the office of Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina; Leng Lee, of the University of Melbourne, in the office of the Joint Economic Committee, minority staff; Ian Repper, of the University of Western Australia, in the offices of Representative Bob Ney of Ohio and the House Administration Committee, majority staff; Heather Rietdyk, of the University of Canberra, in the office of Representative Sam Farr of California; Louise Squire, of the University of Western Australia, in the office of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, minority staff; Lisa Sharland, of Macquarie University, in the office of Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska; Ken Shaw, of the University of Melbourne, in the office of the House Small Business Committee, majority staff; and Jane Stewart, of the University of Melbourne, in the office of Representative Louise Slaughter of New York.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this effort has received programmatic assistance from both the U.S. and Australian governments, as well as numerous individuals and institutions in Washington, DC that have welcomed these students during their visit. I am proud to participate in this worthwhile program, and wish it continued success in the future.