Condemning the murder of Dr. George Tiller, who was shot to death at his church on May 31, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2751) to accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and provide incentives to registered owners of high polluting automobiles to replace such automobiles with new fuel efficient and less polluting automobiles.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of over 2,000 men and women who work in the Ohio assembly plant in my district and approximately 50,000 Ohioans whose jobs are associated with that plant. I rise for the 159,000 Ohioans with auto-related jobs and the 3 to 5 million Americans who rely on the auto industry to provide for their families.

I rise today on behalf of the environment, as we turn the corner to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve fuel economy, and to help reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

I rise today on behalf of the consumers throughout our great country who continue to struggle during this global recession. And I rise today as the proud sponsor of the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act, also known as the CARS Act.

And I want to thank President Obama for his support of this legislation. And I want to thank Speaker Pelosi for supporting this effort and thank Majority Leader Hoyer for all of the help that he has provided as we worked to deliver the benefits of this bill to the American people.

And I want to thank Chairman Waxman, Chairman Markey, Chairman Emeritus Dingell, and Representatives Israel, Inslee, Stupak and Upton for their collaboration and support on this bill. And thank you to my colleagues, Representative Candice Miller and Representative Bruce Braley, who started this process with me back in March.

Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan CARS Act will shore up millions of jobs and stimulate local economies. It will improve our environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It will provide much-needed financial assistance to consumers to trade in less fuel-efficient vehicles for vehicles which achieve a measured increased fuel- efficient.

What the CARS Act will not do is allow someone to trade in a vehicle and receive a voucher to purchase a vehicle that is less fuel efficient.

We have ensured environmental integrity in this bill, and this bill demonstrates that we do not have to bind ourselves to the arguments of the past. We no longer have to give in to the temptation of either/or thinking. The CARS Act demonstrates that we can free ourselves from the false argument of either you are for the environment or you are for jobs. We can do both. We must do both, and that's exactly what the CARS Act does.

2009 auto sales are down nearly 42 percent below the 2005 peak. We have not seen such a decline since 1955, and this decline jeopardizes our country's largest manufacturing industry.

These are not ordinary times. These times call for bold action. Three to 5 million jobs are at risk. Auto-related jobs number in the thousands in every State in our Nation, and though it's called the CARS Act, this bill is far more than about just cars. It's about people. It's about the millions of families in this great Nation who depend on the strength of our auto and related industries for their livelihood. It's about our friends and our neighbors, and it's about our communities that depend on auto-related jobs for their tax base to support their schools, their police, fire and other city services.

By passing the CARS Act, we can shore up these jobs, get customers back into the showrooms, help our dealers move cars, and improve the environment.

Nations across the world have instituted incentive programs. In May, while our auto sales in this country fell 34 percent, sales in Germany increased 40 percent after they instituted a program.

On May 19, the Committee on Energy and Commerce passed an amendment of the CARS Act to the American Clean Energy and Security Act by a bipartisan vote of 50-4.

Under the CARS Act, consumers will trade in less fuel-efficient vehicles and receive an electronic voucher for $3,500 to $4,500 at the point of sale toward the lease or purchase of a vehicle with increased fuel efficiency. Light-duty trucks, both small and large, also qualify under the program, and work trucks, often used by small businesses, will be eligible for replacement as well.

And though our fleet modernization program is open to vehicles, regardless of where they are made, I encourage everyone who participates in this program to think about the families who depend upon cars made in the United States and ask you to purchase a fuel- efficient vehicle assembled right here at home to help shore up jobs and help our environment.

Some refer to this bill as the ``Cash for Clunkers'' bill. Others use a gentler term, ``fleet modernization.'' But by any name, by any title, the CARS Act offers significant multiple benefits.

This bill has earned broad-based support. It has the support of Ford and GM and Chrysler, the United Auto Workers, the Business Round Table, the Automotive Trade Policy Council, the Ohio Automobile Dealers Association, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, PPG Industries, National Paint and Coatings Association, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, Specialty Equipment Market Association, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, the American Iron and Steel Institute, Automotive Recyclers Association, the United Steel Workers, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the American International Automobile Dealers, the National Association of Manufacturers, the AFL- CIO, and the United States Chamber of Commerce. These groups have provided letters of support for this bill, and Mr. Speaker, I would like to include them in the Record.

Washington, DC,

June 9, 2009.

Hon. Betty Sutton,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Sutton: Ford Motor Company strongly

supports the adoption of the Consumer Assistance to Recycle

and Save Act of 2009 (CARS Act) introduced by Rep. Betty

Sutton. This ``cash-for-clunkers'' proposal would provide an

incentive to consumers to trade-in an older, less-efficient

vehicle for a new, higher fuel-economy one.

During the recession, foreign and domestic automakers have

experienced a steep decline in auto sales not seen in over

fifty years. Last week, in fact, automakers reported that

U.S. auto sales for May 2009 were down 33 percent from the

same month a year ago. Action by Congress is urgently needed

to jumpstart vehicle sales and the automotive sector of the

U.S. economy.

The CARS Act would help consumers, support jobs and also

improve the environment. Consumers will benefit from a robust

incentive to purchase a new, more efficient vehicle and the

cost savings from buying less fuel.

While the vouchers provide direct help to consumers, it

also helps support jobs across the industry. Automakers,

autoworkers, suppliers and dealers all benefit from increased

sales and that's why the proposal has been endorsed by both

labor and business, including the UAW and the U.S. Chamber of

Commerce.

For the environment, the plan would help reduce fuel

consumption and decrease emissions by taking old vehicles off

the road and replacing them with new, cleaner ones. Plus, the

program would have the added benefit of

generating as much as S2 billion in needed sales tax revenue

for the states. Thirteen governors have written Congressional

leaders in support of rapid action on a cash-for-clunkers

program.

The CARS Act is timely, temporary, and targeted and is

urgently needed. We request that Members of Congress work to

quickly enact this important legislation by voting ``'yes''

on the CARS Act. Thank you for consideration of our views.

Sincerely,

Peter Lawson,

Vice President, Government Relations.

At this time, it's my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman, my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have.

It's my honor, Madam Speaker, to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Chairman Waxman.

Madam Speaker, at this time it's my honor to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, at this time it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman emeritus and a leader in this effort as well, the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman John Dingell.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to now yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House to speak on this bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman from Massachusetts, Chairman Markey.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time the gentleman from Michigan controls.

Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Bart Stupak.

I would just inquire of the gentleman, we have an abundance of speakers and not quite enough time, would you like to yield some time?

I thank the gentleman very much.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds to my colleague from Ohio, Congressman Tim Ryan.

Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Representative Peters.

Madam Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Madam Speaker, at this point, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington, Representative Jay Inslee.

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we have heard overwhelming support for the CARS Act on the floor today and from across the country throughout this process. I want to thank, first of all, the gentleman from Michigan for what a fantastic job he has done in moving this bill on the floor this afternoon and for all of the work that he put into making it a success. I also want to thank all of those, many of whom we have heard from today here on the floor, for all of their help and their support in getting this innovative measure to the floor and on the way to the beneficial effects for the American people. I also want to thank all of the staff who worked on this bill and bringing it together: my staff, Nicole Francis Reynolds and Christine Corcoran, as well as the staff on the Committee on Energy and Commerce and others, Representative Dingell's staff. It has been a truly collaborative process, and we have a good result.

We have heard about how this bill will improve our environment, serve as an economic stimulus, and shore up the 3 to 5 million jobs in the auto and related industries. Close to home in my district, the Akron Area Auto Dealers Association put it this way: ``Providing an incentive to stimulate sales is a critical step in the recovery of the automobile industry, and congressional passage of the CARS Act represents an opportunity to benefit both the economy and the environment.''

Local 2000 of the United Auto Workers, which assembles the Ford E- Series line of vehicles in my district in Avon Lake, has stated: ``Passage of this important legislation will not only help the consumer and public by putting cars on the road that run cleaner and maintain better fuel efficiency, but it will provide assistance by boosting car sales to the struggling auto industry in America.''

And the United Steelworkers, who represent hundreds of thousands of workers in jobs supplying the auto industry, summed it up like this: ``From the glass, to the tires, to the plastic, to the hundreds of pounds of metal that comprise every vehicle, steelworkers manufacture these products in locations all across the country. Even the paper, the catalogues, and brochures that the automakers use to market their vehicles are often the product of the work of steelworkers. But countless other citizens, union and nonunion, such as auto dealers, accountants, restaurant and shop owners, have their jobs tied to the auto industry.''

Governors from 12 States, including Governor Strickland from Ohio, the Governors of Michigan, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin all support this effort today.

It's time to act, Madam Speaker. It's time to pass the CARS Act, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 505, which condemns the tragic murder of Dr. George R. Tiller of Wichita, Kansas. I would like to thank the author of the bill, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter and Judiciary Chairman John Conyers for their expeditious work in bringing this bill to the floor.

We mourn the loss of Dr. Tiller, a husband, father of four, and grandfather of ten. We also mourn the loss of a man who was a friend to women and young girls around the world, who he saw through their most desperate hours of need.

Dr. Tiller, born and raised in Wichita, was the son of a physician. In medical school, Dr. Tiller planned to become a dermatologist. After his father, mother, sister, and brother-in-law died in a 1970 plane crash, he returned to Kansas to close his father's family practice. His father's patients pleaded with him to return and take over the practice. Eventually, his clinic evolved from general family practice to focusing on reproductive services.

Acts of terror and intimidation were an all too common occurrence at his clinic. In 1986, Dr. Tiller's clinic, the Women's Health Care Services, was bombed. In 1991, it was blockaded for six weeks. In 1993, Dr. Tiller was shot in both arms while trying to enter the clinic. In May 2009, vandals cut wires to security cameras and made holes in the clinic roof.

Dr. Tiller was murdered on Sunday, May 31, 2009. He was shot in his place of worship, the Reformation Lutheran Church. Dr. Tiller served as an usher and his wife, Jeanne, sang in the choir.

I would like to insert into the Record an article by Judith Warner that was published in her New York Times blog. One of Dr. Tiller's cases mentioned by Ms. Warner, that involving a 9 year-old girl who had been raped by her father, is particularly haunting.

This child was 18 weeks pregnant and her small body just would not be able to physically bear the burden of labor and delivery. There

was no doctor or hospital in her rural, Southern town that would provide her with an abortion. She was referred to Dr. Tiller, the doctor of last resort. Dr. Tiller took her case for free. He kept her under his personal care for three days. The young girl and her sister stated that even in this difficult and heart-wrenching situation, he could not have been more wonderful in his care.

On Saturday, memorial services were held for Dr. Tiller. His family and friends remembered him for his generosity and his sense of humor. Let us also remember him for his courage.

Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much).

[From the New York Times, June 4, 2009]

Dr. Tiller's Important Job

(By Judith Warner)

The 9-year-old girl had been raped by her father. She was

18 weeks pregnant. Carrying the baby to term, going through

labor and delivery, would have ripped her small body apart.

There was no doctor in her rural Southern town to provide

her with an abortion. No area hospital would even consider

taking her case.

Susan Hill, the president of the National Women's Health

Foundation, which operates reproductive health clinics in

areas where abortion services are scarce or nonexistent,

called Dr. George Tiller, the Wichita, Kan., ob-gyn who last

Sunday was shot to death by an abortion foe in the entry

foyer of his church.

She begged.

``I only asked him for a favor when it was a really

desperate story, not a semi-desperate story,'' she told me

this week. Tiller was known to abortion providers--and

opponents--as the ``doctor of last resort''--the one who took

the patients no one else would touch.

``He took her for free,'' she said. ``He kept her three

days. He checked her himself every few hours. She and her

sister came back to me and said he couldn't have been more

wonderful. That's just the way he was.''

Other patients of Dr. Tiller's shared their stories this

week on a special ``Kansas Stories'' page hosted by the Web

site ``A Heartbreaking Choice.''

One New York mother wrote of having been referred by an

obstetrician to Tiller after learning, in her 27th week of

pregnancy, that her soon-to-be son was ``so very sick'' that,

once born, he'd have nothing more than ``a brief life of

respirators, dialysis, surgeries and pain.'' In-state doctors

refused to perform an abortion.

``The day I drove up to the clinic in Wichita, Kansas, to

undergo the procedure that would end the life of my precious

son, I also walked into the nightmare of abortion politics.

In this world, reality rarely gets through the rhetoric,''

wrote another mother, from Texas, of the shouts, graphic

posters and protesters' video camera that greeted her when

she came to see Tiller.

Our understanding of what late abortion is like has been

almost entirely shaped in public discourse by the opponents

of abortion rights. In recent years, discussions of the

issue have been filled with the gory details of so-called

partial-birth abortion; the grim miseries that drive some

women and girls to end their pregnancies after the first

trimester have somehow been elided.

``Late abortion is not a failure of contraception. It's for

medical reasons,'' Eleanor Smeal, the president of the

Feminist Majority Foundation, who has worked to defend

abortion providers like Tiller against harassment and

violence since the mid-1980s, told me this week. ``We've made

pregnancy a fairy tale where there are no fetal

complications, there's no cancer, no terrible abuse of girls,

no cases where to make a girl go all the way through a

pregnancy is to destroy her. These are the realities of the

story. That's what Dr. Tiller worked with--the realities.''

There was a great deal of emotion in the air this week as

the reality of Tiller's death set in. Much of it was

mournful, some was celebratory, some was cynical and self-

serving.

There were the requisite expressions of disapproval and

disavowal by politicians from both sides of the abortion

divide. And yet it seemed to me that even from pro-choice

politicians, the response was muted. In death, as in life, no

one wanted to embrace this man who had specialized in helping

women who learned late in their pregnancies that their

fetuses had gross abnormalities.

It seemed that no one wanted to be too closely associated

with the muck and mire of what Tiller had to do in carrying

out the risky and emotionally traumatic second- and third-

trimester abortions that other doctors and hospitals refused

to do. In news reports, there was a tendency to frame the

``abortion doctor's'' murder almost as a kind of combat

death: a natural occupational hazard.

Yet Tiller--who went to work in a bulletproof vest, lived

in a gated community and drove a bulletproof car--was a

doctor, not a soldier. And it is precisely this kind of

thinking--this viewing of his life and work through the lens

of our most gruesome cultural warfare, this slippage and

mixing up of medicine and politics--that left him largely

unprotected at the time of his death.

Someone resembling Scott Roeder, the man charged in Dr.

Tiller's murder, was seen on Saturday trying to pour glue

into the lock on the back door of a Kansas City clinic.

Before that, abortion providers around the country had been

telling local law enforcement and the United States Justice

Department that harassment at their clinics was on the rise,

and they were scared. The Feminist Majority Foundation had

been hearing all spring that the atmosphere outside clinics

was heating up in the wake of the new pro-choice president's

election. ``We all lived through Clinton, the shootings in

'93 and '94. We were concerned some of the extremists said

they had to take the fight 'back to the streets,''' Smeal

said.

There are legal protections in place that ought to keep

abortion providers like Tiller safe. The Freedom of Access to

Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, passed by Congress after the

1993 murder of Dr. David Gunn outside his Pensacola, Fla.,

women's health clinic and the attempted murder of Tiller that

same year, prohibits property damage, acts or threats of

force, and interference with and intimidation of anyone

entering a reproductive health care facility.

When the federal law is backed by complementary state laws,

and when local law enforcement officers apply those laws

assiduously, serious violence greatly declines. When the

law's not applied strenuously, when vandalism goes

uninvestigated, when protesters are allowed to photograph or

videotape patients arriving at women's health clinics, when

death threats aren't followed up, more serious acts of

physical violence follow. In fact, when intimidation occurs

at a clinic, the reported rate of violence triples, the

Feminist Majority Federation's 2008 National Clinic Violence

Survey found.

``We really do need to arrest people who are trespassing.

Arrest people who are gluing locks. Committing more minor

violations of the law so criminal activity doesn't escalate,

so these criminals don't feel emboldened,'' said Vicki

Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation.

``In places where the laws are enforced, you don't see

violence escalate. Protesters generally go someplace where

there's a more hospitable climate,'' she told me. But, she

added, in a lot of communities, law enforcement views clinic

violence as a political problem. ``They don't view it for

what it is: criminal activity outside of a commercial

establishment,'' she said. ``Law enforcement can't treat this

as a political issue. It's a criminal issue.''

We as a nation cannot continue to provide a hospitable

environment for the likes of Roeder because the thought of

what happens to fetuses in late abortions turns our stomachs.

We have to accept that sometimes terrible things happen to

young girls. We have to face the fact that sometimes desired

pregnancies go tragically wrong. We have to weigh our

repugnance for late abortion against the consequences for

women and girls of being denied life-saving medical

treatment.

Only a tiny handful of doctors in this country will, like

Dr. Tiller, provide abortion services for girls or women who

are advanced in their pregnancies. These doctors aren't well

known to patients or even to other doctors, but they're

closely monitored by antiabortion groups, who know where they

work, where they live and where they worship. Roeder may have

been a lone gunman, but in the largest possible sense, he did

not act alone. The location of Tiller's gated community was

prominently featured on an easily-accessed Web site, along

with a map of the streets surrounding his house. It was

really only a matter of time before someone was unbalanced

enough to take the bait.

Most Americans, I'm sure, do not believe that a 9-year-old

should be forced to bear a child, or that a woman should have

no choice but to risk her life to carry a pregnancy to term.

By averting our eyes from the ugliness and tragedy that

accompany some pregnancies, we have allowed anti-abortion

activists to define the dilemma of late abortion. We have

allowed them to isolate and vilify doctors like Tiller.

We can no longer be complicit--through our muted

disapproval or our complacency--in domestic terror.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 505) condemning the murder of Dr. George Tiller, who was shot to death at his church on May 31, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 505, which condemns the murder of Dr. George Tiller, who was shot to death at his church on May 31. The resolution also offers the condolences of the House of Representatives to Dr. Tiller's family. I know that Dr. Tiller and his family are in the thoughts and prayers of every Member of the House today.

I want to commend our colleague, the distinguished chairperson of the Rules Committee, my fellow New Yorker, Ms. Slaughter, for introducing this resolution.

It is imperative that the House of Representatives speak with a united voice in condemning this crime. It is a sad reminder that medical personnel are still at risk from armed extremists who are willing to resort to deadly violence in order to advance their causes even when they cloak their cause in the language of life. There can never be room in a free society for the use of deadly violence to advance a cause. It is against everything this country stands for. I have no doubt there isn't a single Member of this House who would disagree.

This resolution renews our commitment to the American principle that tolerance must always be superior to intolerance and that violence is never an appropriate response to differences and belief.

As deplorable as this murder was, it was all the more reprehensible because the victim was targeted as he was leaving church. In the past 10 years, 38 people have been murdered in their place of worship and 30 more have been wounded.

Dr. Tiller was a controversial figure. He was the target of threats and even a prior shooting because of his dedication to providing needed, if unpopular, services. He was murdered solely because of the work he did. The continued violence directed at abortion providers, including doctors and the people who staff their clinics, is well- known. Bombings, shootings, vandalism, and harassment all serve to warn women and their health care providers that they may pay a terrible price if they choose to avail themselves of their rights under the Constitution.

This was not the first time a health care provider was similarly targeted. I am sure every Member of this House and every decent American, however they may feel or whatever they may believe on the question of abortion, will insist that this and every other question must be decided by our legal, constitutional, and democratic processes and not by murderous violence. I am sure we all condemn those people or groups who espouse or excuse domestic terrorism.

But while violence has long been directed at the clinics and the people who work there, this time the killer chose, in addition, to invade the sanctity of the Sabbath. Murderous intolerance is never justified; even so, the idea of bringing death and mayhem to a house of worship strikes all people as particularly reprehensible. These acts include the murder of an Illinois pastor in the pulpit in March of this year; the murder of an Ohio minister in November of last year; the murder of an usher and a guest during a children's play in a Tennessee church in July of last year; the murder of four family members in a church in Louisiana in May 2006; and the shooting of a worshipper outside a synagogue in Florida in October 2005; not to mention the attempted bombings of two synagogues in Riverdale in the Bronx just a few weeks ago. Whether these acts of violence target one individual or an entire community of faith, we must all join together and speak out against them.

I urge all of my colleagues to stand up to those who would bring their reign of terror into a house of worship and those who would seek to change American law by violence and unconstitutional means to express their opprobrium of this conduct by supporting this resolution condemning the murder of George Tiller and extending the condolences of this House to the members of Dr. Tiller's family.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the chairperson of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

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

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Does that mean the gentleman has declined his right to a closing?

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution condemns the murder of Dr. Tiller. It condemns the murder of people who are murdered in church and places of worship. It condemns the practice, and it has become a practice, of seeking to change the laws of this country, of seeking to intimidate women from availing themselves of their rights, of their constitutional right to an abortion, of intimidating doctors from availing themselves of their constitutional right to perform medical procedures that are legal and that they believe are moral by threats of murder and mayhem.

I was glad to hear Mr. Smith say that the pro-life movement is nonviolent, and I'm sure that most of it is. But, unfortunately, it is clear that there are some people, a small minority, who believe themselves part of the pro-life movement who are not nonviolent. And these people have engaged in such conduct and have murdered several providers of abortion simply for doing what they believe to be the right thing, what I believe to be the right thing, and, more importantly, what the law allows them to do, and to intimidate other people from doing this.

This resolution, which I trust every Member of this House will vote for, says that we do not believe in trying to change the law by violence. We do not believe in domestic terrorism, defining ``terrorism'' as an attempt to change the law through murder and violence and mayhem. We believe in constitutional processes. And if every single one of us does not believe in that, then we have no moral superiority over the terrorists that we condemn around the world.

So I trust everyone will vote for this resolution to express our horror of what was done in this instance, to express our belief that social change, if necessary, will be brought about by peaceful democratic debate and by votes, not by bullets, and that this country stands for the evolution of law by debate and by consideration and by democratic means. I urge everyone to vote for this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I want to speak about the senseless killing of a good man as he was volunteering as an usher among family and friends in his place of worship. Dr. George Tiller got shot to death, as most of us know, at his church in Wichita, Kansas, on May 31. A single gunshot fired by a man who apparently has a long history of animosity to a woman's right to choose ended the life of a man who had dedicated his life to helping others and was a stark reminder to all of us of the raw emotion surrounding this issue.

In the days since the arrest of the shooter, we have now heard reports that even more violence may be planned against doctors who believe in choice. And while this kind of violence is deplorable, it seems to me that this act is particularly villainous because it took place in a house of worship.

This church, a place where people come together to seek peace, safety, and protection, was in an instant transformed into a place of shocking, senseless violence.

Our places of worship are meant to be peaceful refuges for those who seek serenity in times of turmoil and safety in times of hostility. The sanctity of these places is honored at all times and without regard to denomination. There should be no exception to this rule that we are taught early and that provides us with a structure for our interaction with other faiths and beliefs. Only the most evil can bring violence into these sacred buildings. To defile houses of worship with bloodshed is nothing less than villainous, and we should not tolerate such actions in a civilized society.

For millennia, into the Middle Ages, our churches, synagogues, mosques, and others have been the center of communities, places of scholarship, proponents of peace and love among humankind. There is more to a place of worship than its physical presence; there is a sense of community and accord and safety where worshippers can share their faith. But when you look at our recent history, what we have seen is a disturbing rise in violence at churches that we have taken no note of in the House of Representatives. As mentioned, 68 persons have been shot, dead, wounded or assaulted in violence in religious institutions here in the United States. This is more than deplorable.

Deepening the tragedy is the fact that, until now, there has been no expression of outrage decrying violence in a place of worship. It shakes the foundations of our communities, our principles, and our Nation. It is not a Christian issue or a Jewish issue or an Islamic issue or any one faith. It is a test of what we as a society are willing to tolerate and a reminder that some people in this Nation do not respect the sanctity of a house of worship.

The brutal killing of Dr. Tiller was the latest church killing. In March of 2009, Rev. Fred Winters was killed while at the pulpit by gunfire at the First Baptist Church in Illinois. It was only after the gun malfunctioned that members of the congregation subdued the shooter to prevent further fatalities.

Rev. Donald Fairbanks, Sr., was fatally shot at the Ninth Street Baptist Church of Covington, Kentucky, in November of 2008. He was visiting from his Cincinnati, Ohio, church to attend a funeral for a woman with relatives in his congregation. Grief turned to fear as the gunman opened fire in the church.

In July 2008, an usher and a guest were shot and killed during the opening act of a children's play in Knoxville, Tennessee. This time, the gunman walked into the sanctuary carrying a guitar case with a 12- gauge shotgun. He is said to have fired over 40 shots, killing two and injuring seven.

In May 2006, five family members were killed by a gunman who opened fire during a church service at The Ministry of Jesus Christ Church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. A whole family was wiped out, and the shooter's wife was abducted from the church and killed nearby.

One of the most upsetting church killings in recent memory occurred in 1999 when a lone gunman massacred seven worshippers and wounded seven others at a youth celebration--150 teenagers strong--that was taking place in the sanctuary of the Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas. The assault was one of the worst ever, and I know there was a tremendous sense of loss after that awful act.

Why doesn't America care about this? Why have we said absolutely nothing about it? Why are we now allowing concealed weapons to be carried in Federal parks where, frankly, I hope most people will not be able to go in any notion that they might come out of there alive.

Dr. Tiller's family held a memorial service for him over the weekend after his burial on Friday, and he was remembered by all four of his children for his care and devotion as both a physician and father. It is a senseless tragedy, and so I offer this resolution and hope that all Members of this House will say ``no more.''

I thank my colleague Mr. Nadler for yielding.

I want to close my portion here by reminding people what a terrible thing that has happened in this country to a man who was simply doing what he was allowed to do, what he was trained to do.

I think perhaps I should state for the record, too, that third trimester abortions are less than 1 percent, and even Roe v. Wade says that after the first trimester the State has an interest and that it takes two doctors, as well as it does for the third trimester. These are oftentimes babies that have been desperately wanted and planned, but in order to save the health of the mother or to prevent her from carrying a toxic fetus that has already expired, it is sometimes necessary to do this. It is not a whim. It is not something that women do. I think, if anything, what insults my intelligence and my feeling as a woman and a grandmother is the notion that women will just wake up one morning and say, Well, I've had enough. That just does not happen. Women are, by nature, nurturers, and we are just not like that, and it's a major insult to us.

But as we remember this killing and affirm the need for peace in our places of worship, let's remind ourselves of the need for tolerance and kindness. I offer this resolution and offer the most sincere condolences to the family.

The resolution affirms that the House of Representatives commits to the American principle that tolerance must always be superior to intolerance.

I urge Members to join me in supporting this to renounce nefarious violence in our places of worship where Americans seek sanctuary. Violence is deplorable and never an acceptable avenue for expressing opposing viewpoints.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Ohio and my colleague from Michigan, Mrs. Miller. This is not the perfect bill, but this is it. There is no plan B. This is not the original bill that Ms. Sutton and Mrs. Miller introduced, but this is the bill that passed our committee 50-4.

One in 10 jobs in America are auto-related. In the last couple of years now, particularly through this tough recession, we have lost one in five manufacturing jobs, and certainly the Midwest has been critically hurt.

The auto sector, we've seen auto sales plummet from 17 million car sales just 2 or 3 years ago to probably what will be less than 10 million, not only this year, but next year as well. Not only the Big 3 supports this, but Toyota, Honda, the Chamber, a whole number of different groups, the UAW, the Auto Manufacturers, the National Association of Manufacturers, the auto dealers as well. You know what this bill is? It's a jobs bill.

But more important than that, it's an American jobs bill, and it's time to stop the dominos from falling the wrong way and beginning to turn the switch from ``red'' to ``green'' for auto jobs and get something in the hands of consumers that will boost their confidence.

Now, who else has done this bill? Well, 16. And guess what? The sales are up. Germany, sales have increased by 40 percent; France, sales are up March through May; the UK, Japan, China, Korea, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Malaysia, Austria, Romania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands. Even Slovakia, auto sales have increased by some 18 percent.

Madam Speaker, this is a very good bill. It's one that has bipartisan support. It's time to put American jobs first and begin to move this process forward. We know we have a majority in this House for this bill. The question is do we have two-thirds. I would like to think we do. This is it. We're not going to have another bill. It's not going back to Rules. We need to pass this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Cantor from Virginia.

Madam Speaker, at this point, I would like to yield to 2 minutes to one of the cofounders of the Manufacturing Caucus and certainly a member of the Automotive Caucus, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Madam Speaker, at this point I would yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the great State of Michigan, who was an original author with Ms. Sutton of the first bill, Mrs. Miller, for 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama and a member in good standing of the Auto Caucus, Mr. Rogers.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just note that I have a list of folks wanting to speak, but they're not here. That is why I am reserving the balance of my time.

I will yield the gentlelady 4 minutes of my time to control.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman another minute.

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

Madam Speaker, it is time to get America moving again, and that's exactly what this bill does. The auto sector is so important to our country in virtually every single community. It doesn't have to just be a community that has an assembly line. It's the communities that build parts, whether it be a gas cap or a part for a brake, a side panel, a piece of trim, a window. Auto dealers are in virtually every community across the country, and they average about 50 employees per dealership. So this bill impacts every single community across America.

No one here today has talked about what this bill also does. We will rely less on foreign oil because the average consumer, by taking advantage of this program, will save $780 in fuel costs because they're going to trade in that old car and they're going to have a more fuel- efficient, better emission vehicle than they had before; $780 per household for those that take advantage of it. We have fraud and abuse provisions in here so that they won't be taken advantage of.

And to my good friend Mr. Flake, yes, there is a sunset. This program doesn't go on forever. There is a sunset. It's a temporary Band-Aid to fix an economic problem that needs America's attention.

Isn't it better, isn't it better to have people work and have a job and pay taxes than having them laid off and receive benefits? I think most Americans would rather have that job. They want to pay their taxes. This is a bill that helps America, and that's one of the reasons why it passed in our committee 50-4.

I would urge all of my colleagues to support this. And, sadly, because of the procedure, it does have to pass tonight by a two-thirds vote rather than a majority. I would like to think that we can exceed that two-thirds and pass it.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.