Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY 10 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

Requesting Member: Representative Christopher H. Smith

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Project name: Re-establishing Ties: The Road from Warrior to the Community

Account: OM, ARNG

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: New Jersey Department of Military and Veterans Affairs

Address of Requesting Entity: 101 Eggert Crossing Road, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

Description of Request: This funding would be used to help successfully transition returning soldiers back in civilian life through the NJ National Guard's multi-tiered, reintegration program to address the needs of the returning combat veteran. This program includes: PTSD and TBI Screening; Suicide Prevention Efforts; Small Business Restart Assistance; and Counseling Services, among other benefits.

Mr. Speaker, Chairman Berman's Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, cosponsored by the ranking member, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, significantly ratchets up strong bipartisan pressure on Iran to end their nefarious quest for nuclear weapons.

Given Ahmadinejad's extreme hostility toward Israel, his outrageous threats to annihilate Israel from the face of the Earth, and his obsessive hatred of Jews worldwide, this bill strengthens penalties on those who not only sell, lease, or provide to Iran any goods, services, technology, information, or support that would allow Iran to maintain or expand its domestic production of refined petroleum resources, it has other sanctions as well.

Mr. Speaker, any serious effort to peacefully stop Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, which I believe they will use if they acquire them, requires the strongest political and economic pressure that we can muster. H.R. 2194 is a step, the right step in that direction.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res 218, expressing Congress's deepest condolences to the families of the 57 victims of the Maguindanao massacre. I thank my good friend from California, Mr. Berman, for authoring the resolution, which I am proud to co-sponsor.

Madam Speaker, when a friend is struck by a tragedy, perhaps the death of a family member, we all know what to do. We call them up, we visit them, we reach out to them. That is what they need at that moment--to know they are not alone, that they are accompanied by friends. I am confident this is happening in the Philippines right now. The Filipino people have strong families, and a gift for friendship.

I think it is like that with nations too. What happened in Maguindanao was such a terrible tragedy that other nations have to reach out and remind the Filipino people that they are part of a great human family, and that other nations grieve with them.

Madam Speaker, lest anyone doubt the importance of this gesture, let me remind them of the outpouring of support, which came from every corner of the globe, after the September 11 attacks in 2001. That meant so much to us.

But, Madam Speaker, the Filipino people also need justice. When a crime is committed on such a scale and in such a manner as the Maguindanao massacre, fundamental issues of justice and human rights are raised. The ambush of 57 people travelling in broad daylight to file a candidate's nomination papers, their forced march to a prepared killing field, their grisly shooting, mutilation, including the sexual mutilation and reportedly rape of women, and attempted burial by government-owned equipment--something is deeply wrong. And let's remember that the murder of 30 journalists is a full-scale attack on freedom of expression--the Committee to Protect Journalists says this massacre was the deadliest attack on journalists since it began monitoring in 1992.

My good friend's resolution addresses these issues. It condemns the ``culture of impunity'' that precedes and enables such a crime, and calls for a ``transparent and independent investigation and prosecution'' of those responsible, and the proceedings to be conducted with the highest possible level of ``impartiality and regard for witness protection.'' And this is the issue: whether in our own country or elsewhere, whenever a government is unwilling to administer justice, it prepares the ground for human rights violations.

This resolution also calls for an end to extrajudicial killings and political violence, and for press freedom and safety. Finally, it urges our government to offer technical assistance to the investigation.

Madam Speaker, let us ask God to comfort all those who have lost family members and friends in this terrible crime. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today the House has an opportunity to significantly limit public funding of abortion in a manner that replicates the Hyde amendment and applies it to the two new massive government health care programs created in the pending bill: the public option and affordability credit program.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment ensures that pro-life Americans will not be forced to fund, enable, or facilitate the killing of unborn children and the wounding of their mothers.

Supermajorities, more than 67 percent, oppose public funding of abortion. Protecting vulnerable unborn children and women from the insidious violence of abortion is the human rights cause of our time.

So please let's not gloss over or trivialize the fact that abortion dismembers, decapitates, starves to death, or chemically poisons innocent babies, and that the abortion act itself, euphemistically called ``choice,'' can in no way be construed to be compassionate, benign, nurturing, or health care. Abortion is violence against women and children. It is neither health care nor reform.

Support the Stupak-Pitts amendment

Mr. Speaker, like most Americans, I believe we urgently need health care reform to provide every American access to high-quality medical care.

During the long and painful illnesses of both my parents, I had to fight with their health management organization to get them the care they deserved. Their HMO put my family through months of frustration and anguish. I know I'm not alone--tens of millions of Americans have gone through this as well. It's not right, and it's time to change that. Americans need more protection, power, and say in their health care programs, and they need us to reform the system to make it more affordable for everyone.

Regrettably, H.R. 3962, the bill before the House tonight, not only falls short, but it will make most people's health care worse, and it will certainly disempower all of us. For this reason I strongly oppose the bill--H.R. 3962.

After carefully studying H.R. 3962, I am concerned that the bill is actually a step backwards--many patients will have less, not more, access to and say over their health care if H.R. 3692 is enacted. I firmly believe we can and must reform our health care system and provide better solutions for those currently uninsured or underinsured. But we must do so without jeopardizing the quality of health care for these currently insured people and families, many of whom will see their own health care access and quality seriously eroded under the bill.

H.R. 3962 will:

Limit patient access by establishing federal bureaucracies with new authority to determine what medical treatments and services will be covered at, what costs patients will pay--Americans will be so disadvantaged that this bill makes those who don't purchase ``acceptable'' coverage (as defined by the federal government) subject to criminal fines and imprisonment up to 5 years.

Cause most Americans to lose access to their current health insurance coverage and force them into a nationally uniform public plan. It will do this by subsidizing a government-run ``public plan'' that will ultimately drive private health plans out of business. Most Americans don't want to lose their current insurance, and they trust the public plan even less than they trust private insurance, which at least has to compete for customers, and permits them to choose their doctors. This would hit my constituents especially hard--according to the Urban Institute, approximately 90% of the people in my district currently have health coverage;

Slash payments to health-care providers, threatening the continued existence of many hospitals, home health and skilled nursing facilities serving New Jersey residents.

Madam Speaker, throughout my career in Congress, I have been a steadfast supporter of Medicare for our senior citizens and the disabled. I have voted several times to preserve and protect Medicare even when I stood alone in my own party rejecting a proposal to cut $270 billion from Medicare in 1995.

That is why I find it absolutely unacceptable that H.R. 3962 cuts Medicare by a whopping $500 billion. Proponents argue that some funding will be returned through other avenues. But even if that were true, Medicare will still be drastically cut by a net of $219.4 billion, in their ``best case scenario.''

The bill also guts Medicare Advantage plans, which offer additional coverage to over 11 million seniors--15,983 in my district alone--who choose Medicare Advantage plans as the coverage that best meets their needs.

I will not vote for massive cuts in Medicare. These cuts will wreak havoc on our nation's health care system and everyone it serves, particularly the seniors and disabled. We need reform legislation that respects all human life, the most vulnerable among us which includes the frail and the disabled of all ages.

Finally, this bill will hinder economic recovery and job creation during a major recession. Just yesterday the nation's unemployment rate rose above 10 percent for the first time since 1983, and if you include those who have stopped looking for jobs and those who can only find part-time work, the rate is 17.5 percent. The bill does additional harm by:

Raising taxes on individuals and small businesses by $729.5 billion;

Failing to reform our costly and unfair system of medical liability lawsuits, which inflates health care costs by billions of dollars each year, exceeding 10% of all health care expenditures;

Mandating a $34 billion expansion of state Medicaid payments--in order to cover this massive increase, financially strapped states like New Jersey will have to cut other services; and

Costing the taxpayer, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), $1.3 trillion over ten years and using budget gimmicks and tax increases to cover that cost.

I must mention two other serious problems with the bill:

It does not adequately protect the freedom of conscience of health care providers opposed to abortion, and sets up mechanisms that ration care by creating government ``waiting lists'' if there are insufficient funds to pay expenses; and

It does not require patients to verify their identity, which, according to the CBO, means that millions undocumented immigrants will receive free health care, unfairly subsidized by taxpaying citizens.

It is truly unfortunate that the Democratic leadership did not work to put forth a health care reform bill that addressed these concerns. We need a proposal that advances solutions rather than creates new problems. Let me be clear, I take a back seat to no one when it comes to working to ensure that the federal government accepts its role and is doing its part in helping people and providing a health care safety net for those in desperate need of health care support. I am proud of my record, voting to defeat cuts to and expand existing federal health care programs, while working to protect patient rights and the delivery of quality medical care. These efforts include:

Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP. I support providing our senior citizens a high level of benefits under the Medicare program. On one occasion, I voted against a $270 billion reduction in Medicare spending. One reason I cannot support the current health care legislation is because it makes over $500 billion in cuts to Medicare. To expand health insurance to more uninsured low-income children, I voted in 1997 for legislation creating the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and voted last year to expand the program. SCHIP and Medicaid together cover more than 30 million low-income children, as well as 16 million adults, 6 million seniors, and 10 million persons with disabilities. That is why I have been so adamant about protecting those programs.

Community Health Centers. Federally designated community health centers are another effective means to get affordable health care to underserved communities. The health centers program includes community, migrant, homeless, and public housing health centers and provides primary and preventive care to more than 18 million individuals at over 3,700 sites located in every state and U.S. territory. I have been a consistent supporter of increased funding for the community health centers program. A significant factor in the success of community health centers is that they are managed at the community level with a concern for serving their clients in their local neighborhoods.

Veterans Health Care. As former Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I fought successfully (and sometimes nearly alone) to provide increased medical services and funding for veterans health care programs. I wrote several laws to boost and expand veterans health care, including the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act (PL 107-135), which expanded and enhanced veterans' healthcare services and reduced out-of-pocket costs for low income veterans by 80 percent and continues to help disabled veterans obtain the tools they need to live fuller lives. I also wrote the law, the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 2004 (PL 108-422), that created 5 poly-trauma centers within the VA, and an additional 17 networked sites, that specialize in treating complex multi-trauma injuries--including severe brain injury--associated with combat injuries from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Health Care Caucuses. Working with my colleagues across the aisle, I have cofounded and currently co-chair important bipartisan health care working groups, i.e. caucuses, which aim to educate Members of Congress and increase federal resources and research on treatments and cures for specific diseases, some which effect New Jersey residents disproportionately. For instance, I serve as co-chairman of the bipartisan Congressional Alzheimer's Task Force; the Coalition for Autism Research and Education; the Spina Bifida Caucus; and the Lyme Disease Caucus. Each caucus has served as an effective forum to advance legislation that helps families combating health care challenges;

Patients Rights. As far back as 2001, I cosponsored and voted for the Patient Protection Act which contained critical patient protections to help put doctors and patients back in control of their health care decisions, rather than bureaucrats at managed care companies. Unfortunately, while separate bills passed the House and the Senate, they were never signed into law.

Insurance Reform. I voted for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of

1996 (HIPPA), which provided insurability protections for individuals moving between insurance plans in the individual or group markets and reduced or eliminated preexisting medical condition exclusion periods for such individuals. I have also been a strong advocate for allowing small businesses, associations, and non-profit organizations to band together to purchase health insurance. In acquiring health insurance, small businesses do not enjoy the benefits of economies of scale of large businesses, which allows those large businesses to spread administrative costs over a large base and provide significant leverage in negotiating lower premiums. Over 50 percent of the nation's uninsured are employed in a small business or are a dependent of such a worker.

Medical Malpractice Reform. The House of Representatives has voted to pass medical liability reform legislation with my support eight times in the past 15 years. These bills--which sought to place a cap on non- economic damages, limit punitive damages, and restrict attorneys' fees--were modeled after a California law that many credited for relatively low malpractice premiums in the state.

While we have had some significant successes in these critical areas expanding--frequently after much toil--it is indisputable that more comprehensive changes are needed, including major reforms of the private health insurance market.

The goal of responsible health care reform should be to provide credible health insurance coverage for everyone, strengthening the health care safety net so that no one is left out, and incentivizing quality and innovation, as well as healthy behaviors and prevention. This means that the current private health insurance market will have to be reformed to put patients first, and to eliminate denials for pre- existing conditions and lifetime caps and promoting portability between jobs and geographic areas, including across state lines. The tax code should be modernized to promote affordability and individual control, provide assistance to low-income and middle-class families. Medicare requires reform to be more efficient and responsive, with sustainable payment rates.

Of course responsible health care reform will respect basic principles of justice: it will put patients and their doctors in charge of medical decisions, not insurance companies or government bureaucrats. It will also ensure that the lives and health of all persons are respected regardless of stage of development, age or disability.

The Republican alternative amendment does these things. It focuses on lowering health care premiums for families and small businesses, increasing access to affordable, high-quality care, and promoting healthier lifestyles--without increasing taxes or adding to the crushing debt Washington has placed on our children and grandchildren and without cutting Medicare. It also establishes a real conscience protection for health care providers and it requires verification of citizenship and identity.

I oppose H.R. 3962 because in many ways it jeopardizes coverage for those who already have it, especially seniors and the disabled. At the same time it exercises far too much top-down government control, forcing everyone toward a government plan, controlling exactly what sort of care will be offered. For this reason I support the Republican alternative amendment. It moves significantly in the right direction while applying the wisdom of Hippocrates' first principle of medicine: doing no harm.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Stupak

This week, another Planned Parenthood clinic director resigned after watching an ultrasound of an actual abortion in progress.

Self-described as extremely pro-choice but now pro-life, Abby Johnson said she watched an unborn child ``crumple'' before her very eyes as the infant was vacuumed and dismembered by a suction device 20 to 30 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner.

Ms. Johnson said and told ABC News, ``I could see the baby try to move away. I just thought, `What am I doing?' ``Never again.''

Mr. Speaker, abortion not only kills children; it harms women physically and psychologically, and it risks significant harm to subsequent children.

Recently, the Times of London reported, ``Women who have had abortions have twice the level of psychological problems and three times the level of depression as women who have given birth or never been pregnant.'' The Times said ``senior obstetrians and psychiatrists say new evidence has uncovered a clear link between abortion and mental illness. . . .''

Numerous studies show that the risk of preterm birth to children born to women who have had abortions increases. It skyrockets. One abortion preterm births goes up by 35 percent, two abortions a staggering 93 percent. One of the the leading causes of mental and motor retardation is prematurity.

We have and are going to have more disabling, because of abortion. If we truly don't want to see more abortions and if we want to reduce them, don't fund it.

The Guttmacher Institute has said, formerly the research arm of Planned Parenthood, that prohibiting Federal funds for abortion reduces abortion by 25 percent.

Millions of people are alive today because of the Hyde amendment, because funding was not there to effectuate their demise. Vote for the Stupak-Pitts amendment. It will save lives.

Madam Speaker, even though reputable polls consistently show that public funding of abortion is opposed by a supermajority of Americans, some 67 percent, the multibillion-dollar abortion industry, its lobbyists and friends in Congress are today demanding that the two massive new government programs created by the Democratic leadership's so-called ``health care reform'' bill force Americans to facilitate and fund the killing of unborn children by abortion.

Anyone who tells you otherwise--and I appreciate the gentleman from Texas pointing out the text. It clearly states it. Anyone who tells you otherwise that public funding for abortion on demand is not in the pending legislation is either seriously misinformed or simply not telling the truth.

Americans do want to know up front what's in this bill. No games. No brinksmanship. Americans want and the public deserves total transparency and truth in legislating.

Madam Speaker, despite the fact that in 2009 we know more and understand more about the magnificent world of unborn children than ever before--the fact that these babies move inside the womb and stretch and do somersaults and kick, they wake and sleep, believe it or not--and it is true, they have a waking and sleeping cycle. The fact that beneficial prenatal health care interventions, including microsurgery, can be performed in utero, inside the womb, blood transfusions inside the womb, the fact that these children can feel excruciating physical pain before birth, including the pain deliberately inflicted by abortionists--I would note, parenthetically, that I authored the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, which got 250 votes in a bipartisan vote a couple of years ago. And we know for a fact that at least at 20 weeks gestation, unborn children feel excruciating pain up to four times what everyone else after birth feels because the pain receptors are very close to the skin. And we do believe that these children feel pain even earlier than the 20th week. Despite all of this, President Obama and the Democratic leadership are on a fast track to compel, force, mandate, and coerce public funding for abortions.

Madam Speaker, pro-life Americans want no role or complicity in this assault on the weakest and the most vulnerable. Frankly, Madam Speaker, it is time to face an inconvenient truth--abortion is violence against children, and it exploits and harms women.

There has been study after study that shows that women who procure abortions experience immediate relief followed by very serious psychological and deleterious consequences to them. And the younger they are, it appears, based on the empirical data, the more egregious the pain and suffering and the agony endured by these young women.

New Zealand did a study in 2006, a very comprehensive study, and found that 78.6 percent of the 15- to 18-year-old girls who had abortions displayed symptoms of major depression compared to 31 percent of their peers. Twenty-seven percent of the 21- to 25-year-old women who had abortions had suicidal idealization compared to 8 percent of those who did not have abortions. Abortion hurts women.

I would remind my colleagues that organizations like the Silent No More Campaign, run so admirably and courageously by people like Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, a woman who had two abortions and had profound, profound psychological problems from that but now knows reconciliation and hope again, Silent No More is made up exclusively of women who have had abortions. Dr. King has said that her uncle's dream, how does it survive if we murder the children? And then she went on to say the other victim is and always will be the woman.

Time magazine, and others, has finally reported on another little known fact--abortion adversely affects subsequent children born to women who abort. Recent studies have indicated that the risks of preterm birth goes up 36 percent after one abortion, and a staggering 93 percent after two or more abortions. Similarly, the risk of subsequent children being born with low birth weight increases by 36 percent after one abortion and 72 percent after two or more.

The health consequences to subsequent children born to women who abort is deeply troubling and largely unrecognized and underreported upon. Thus, abortion not only kills babies and wounds women, it directly injures subsequent children. And as we all know, prematurity is one of the leading causes of disabilities in children.

As you know better than I, Madam Speaker, Congress will vote as early as Saturday on the health care restructuring bill, H.R. 3962, and it includes highly deceptive policy language that will massively increase the number of

children killed and mothers wounded by abortion. Let's be clear and unambiguous, both the public option and the program establishing affordability credits authorize public funding and facilitation of abortion on demand, which means, of course, that the number of children who will be forced to suffer unspeakable agony of abortion methods including dismemberment, decapitation, starvation--people say, How does RU46 work? First it starves the baby to death, and then the other chemical in RU46 just simply causes that dead baby to be expelled from the uterus. Then there are also chemicals that are providing for or forcing early expulsion from the womb and other types of chemical poisoning. All of this will skyrocket.

The empirical evidence that public funding of abortions means more abortions is both logical and compelling. Even the Goodmacher Institute, formerly the research arm of Planned Parenthood, says that prohibiting Federal funds under the Hyde Amendment prevents abortions that otherwise would have been procured by a stunning 25 percent. That means that since enactment of the funding ban in the late seventies and early eighties, millions of children who would have otherwise been brutally killed by abortionists if public funding had facilitated their demise today, live and go to school, play sports, perhaps watched the World Series last night. Some of those spared are today raising their own kids, perhaps even serving as staff or Members of Congress. So whether we publicly fund abortion or not literally means life or death for countless individuals, going forward.

The Democratic health bill, Madam Speaker, discriminates against the most vulnerable minority in America today, unborn babies, and is the quintessential example of the politics of exclusion--in this case because of the child's age, condition of dependency, and vulnerability.

There is nothing whatsoever benign, compassionate, or nurturing about abortion. Abortion is a serious lethal violation of human rights. And now we are on the verge of being compelled to massively subsidize this violence against children.

Madam Speaker, no one is really fooled by the multiple attempts to craft language that funds abortions but uses surface appeal text to suggest otherwise. I'm afraid the rule will likely contain self- enacting text that further misleads and obfuscates. Thus, the only policy language that honestly and transparently precludes public funding for abortion is the Stupak-Pitts amendment. The Capps amendment that is already in the bill, as I said, explicitly authorizes Federal funding for abortion in the public option. And again, I urge Members to just read it. With abortion covered under the public option, we will see more abortions. It also allows the government subsidies, the other program, to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion. As a matter of fact, every region will have to have a plan that provides for abortion.

One of the great successes of the Right to Life movement is increasingly calling out to those so-called providers, abortionists, and inviting them to leave that grizzly business. And most of the hospitals in the country and most of the counties in the country no longer have abortionists. This legislation provides economic incentives and the force of law to ensure that every one of these localities has abortionists and abortions provided in a plan.

Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote for the Bart Stupak-Joe Pitts amendment if it is given an opportunity to be voted on. And if not, this whole bill--because you know what Hippocrates said, ``Do no harm.'' What did the great leaders and nurturers and health care leaders say in the past? Never do harm to an innocent. This is not health care. Abortion is not health care. It is the deliberate and willful killing of an unborn child, the wounding of their mothers, and the hurting, the serious destruction in terms of disabilities and the like to subsequent children.

I would like to yield Congresswoman Schmidt such time as she might consume. And I want to thank her for her leadership on behalf of the unborn through these many years in service to Congress and before that.

Madam Speaker, I yield to Mr. Cao, the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana.

I thank him for his leadership, the first Vietnamese American Member of Congress and a staunch fighter for human rights. I've known him in the refugee battles, especially for the boat people, and in so many other human rights' issues.

So I yield to my friend.

I want to thank my friend and colleague for his eloquent and very passionate statement. Knowing of his work on behalf of human rights and of his standing as a human rights advocate globally, thank you so very much, And, for that very powerful statement.

I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), and want to, again, thank him for his leadership for so many years in the defense of life.

I thank Mr. Gohmert for his, again, very eloquent statement and for his logic, which is so important and sometimes lacking in this august body.

Let me also point out that we have a man who is going to speak next, Mark Souder. Truth in legislating is not a forgotten art, and when people say, as you pointed out, Mr. Gohmert, that the abortion funding in both the public option and in the program that establishes affordability credits couldn't be more clear, there's no ambiguity about it. There is some language that is very, very deceiving that leads people to think it's not in there. And then people say it. The President of the United States suggested that funding for abortion is not in his plan. And, frankly, assuming he was misled by perhaps staff, nothing could be further from the truth.

I would like to yield to a man who offered airtight pro-life language in the committee on which he serves, Education and Labor Committee, to speak, Mr. Souder.

Thank you, Mr. Souder. And I do want to thank you again for offering that amendment and for that very illuminating and incisive hearing on RU-486.

Again, we know that the trials that led to approval by the FDA, when Kessler was the head of the FDA under President Clinton, he on bended knee asked the company that manufactures RU-486 to bring it here. Sham trials were conducted where women who were seriously hurt were not reported. And we know for a fact, women are actually dying from RU-486. Probably because they had the best reporting of any other State, those women have surfaced in California from those deaths attributable to RU- 486. And it's baby pesticide that has serious consequences for women, including death.

Again, no pharmaceutical company in America would take up RU-486, the abortion drug, simply because it was so dangerous. So they found the Population Council Company. Try suing them when you have egregious harm done to a woman or a death, a fatality. It's an organization. It's not like Merck or some other because all of them took a pass because it is so dangerous.

And you held the only hearing, as you so well pointed out, and I commend the gentleman for them.

I would like to yield to Mr. Fortenberry, a good friend and great champion of human rights as well.

I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague Dr. Roe, an OB/GYN who knows so much about this and has been a leader in this Congress on all life-related issues as well as other things.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe) very much.

I now yield to my good friend and colleague Mr. Jordan from Ohio.

Thank you for your kind words, but more importantly, for your leadership on the behalf of innocent unborn children and the wounded mothers. I know you work very hard with pregnancy care centers and believe passionately that we need to love and affirm both. It's not about one or the other. It's both. So I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership and consistency.

I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague Mr. King from Iowa.

I thank my good friend. That was a very wise and eloquent statement.

I would like to yield to Mr. Burton of Indiana.

Mr. Burton, thank you very much for your leadership, longstanding, over these many decades. Thank you for being such a great defender of life.

I would like to yield to Dr. Broun.

Dr. Phil Gingrey.

Madam 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 subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, each year, Planned Parenthood kills more than 300,000 children by abortion, yet yesterday another Planned Parenthood director resigned over abortion. Abby Johnson, director of a clinic in College Station, Texas, said she had a change of heart while watching an ultrasound of an actual abortion in real- time.

Self-described as ``extremely pro-choice'' but now pro-life, she said she knew it was time to quit in September when she watched an unborn child ``crumble'' as the baby was vacuumed, dismembered, and destroyed.

Many, including and especially self-described extremely pro-choice Americans like Abby Johnson, are beginning to recognize the ultra-ugly truth about abortion--it kills babies and wounds their mothers. Thus, we must protect both victims of abortion by enacting the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the health care bill.

I appeal to the Democrat leadership, make the Stupak amendment in order, and, please, no phony compromises, because there is nothing benign or compassionate about abortion.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY 10 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act.

Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H. Smith

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Delaware River Dredging Material Utilization

Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Investigations

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: The Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390.

Description: Evaluate problems, needs, and opportunities in the interest of beneficial use of dredged material. This project will provide ecosystem restoration and improve water quality in the vicinity of the Delaware River between Philadelphia and Trenton.

Financial Statement: A reconnaissance study is 100% federally funded. The States of Delaware, New Jersey and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will be the non-Federal sponsors and will provide current site conditions data in this phase, and will contribute half of all subsequent study costs.

New Jersey Shoreline Alternative Long-Term Nourishment

Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Investigations

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: The Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390.

Description: Continue the evaluation of New Jersey's coastal projects, including the different reaches of beach replenishment projects, as a system to ensure maximum benefits are achieved from the Federal investment and reduce long-term periodic nourishment costs.

Financial Statement: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is the non-Federal sponsor and provides their portion of the study costs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 672, Ms. Sanchez's resolution calling on the government of Vietnam to release imprisoned bloggers and respect Internet freedom.

The resolution draws attention to the Internet-restrictive practices of the government of Vietnam. Often, when we speak of the Internet repression of the Chinese or Iranian government, we forget that many other nations suffer under Internet-restrictive governments, including, according to Reporters Without Borders, Vietnam, Cuba, Burma, Egypt, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. The Vietnamese government is one of the most repressive of these, and models its apparatus of repression on that of China. According to the State Department's 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights, the government of Vietnam:

. . . monitored e-mail, searched for sensitive key words,

regulated Internet content, and blocked many Web sites with

political or religious content that authorities deemed

``offensive.'' . . . Authorities continued to detain and

imprison dissidents who used the Internet to publish ideas on

human rights and political pluralism . . . The government

continued to use firewalls to block some Web sites that it

deemed politically or culturally inappropriate, including

sites affiliated with the Catholic Church, such as

Vietcatholic.net and others operated by overseas Vietnamese

political groups.

Mr. Speaker, this excellent resolution also calls on the government of Vietnam to release all imprisoned bloggers and cyber activists, and provides the names of 18 men and women known to be held as political prisoners due to their use of the Internet. I have visited former Vietnamese political prisoners, including Father Ly and have heard first-hand about what they suffer in those prisons. These men and women need our help, and Ms. Sanchez's resolution will afford them a measure of protection.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of Internet freedom becomes more urgent every year. In February of 2006 I held a major hearing that revealed the involvement of U.S. companies in enabling the Chinese government's Internet censorship and surveillance. I then introduced legislation, the Global Online Freedom Act, which would prevent U.S. IT companies from enabling repressive governments' Internet censorship and surveillance. The legislation was blocked in two successive Congresses, while, sadly, the tempo of repression increased, and the technology of repression improved. We saw this in the Chinese government's repression of Tibetan protests last spring. The government blocked Yahoo! and the video-sharing site YouTube, and ramped up its blocking of international news sites. We saw it again in that government's repression of protests in Xinjiang in June of this year. Again the government cut off Internet and phone service, and actively removed and altered comments about the protests on numerous Internet fora and Web sites. Then in Iran, when great numbers of Iranians protested the Ahmadinejad government's stealing of the election, the government responded by cutting off Internet access as well as, with mixed success, to social-networking sites like Twitter and Facebook.

Now every time a repressive government crushes a protest movement, or a movement for freedom or democracy, it also engages in cyber- repression--the Internet is such a strong force for freedom that dictatorships and repressive government can hardly exist without cyber- repression. In recent years cyber-repression has emerged as no less than one of the most dangerous threats to human rights, freedom, and democracy.

Congress has an obligation to better address this issue and help those who are suffering under Internet-restrictive governments. I want to draw members' attention to three other bills which, like H. Res. 672, deserve our support: Mr. Wu's H. Res. 590, expressing concerns about China's Green Dam filtering software; Mr. Sherman's HR 3284, prohibiting federal agencies from entering into procurement contracts with anyone who exports computer technology to Iran; and HR 2271, my own Global Online Freedom Act. All of these bills speak strongly, responsibly, and constructively to cyber-repression. The Global Online Freedom Act, in the last Congress, passed all of its committees and was ready for an up or down vote on the floor; I have improved the bill and re-introduced it in this Congress, and ask colleagues to consider sponsoring it.

I strongly support this resolution in support of the persecuted bloggers of Vietnam, and thank my friend for introducing it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009, which my good friend and colleague Chairman Berman introduced on April 30, and of which I am a co-sponsor.

Madam Speaker, this bill amends the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to impose sanctions on persons who sell to or service, or otherwise commercially or financially support, Iran's petroleum industry. The bill responds to Iran's lack of refining capabilities--Iran imports 40 percent of its gasoline and relies on foreign companies to develop its energy industry. Limiting Iran's access to refined petroleum could have a major effect on the Iranian economy--and on Ahmadinejad's policies.

Even as President Obama opens diplomatic talks with Iran, we know, from all our experience with Iran and so many other dictatorships, that a serious effort to peacefully stop Iran's development of nuclear weapons will require the strongest political and economic pressure our country can muster.

Madam Speaker, it will not only be worth the effort, but it's absolutely necessary that we make this effort. In this regard, I want to point out that we have repeatedly seen the correspondence between the way a government treats its own people and the way it behaves internationally. It seems to be almost a law of international relations: massive human rights violators behave deceitfully and aggressively, and the more massive the violations, the greater the deceit and aggression.

The law has certainly held in the case of the Ahmadinejad government, whose deceit in hiding a previously secret uranium enrichment facility was revealed several weeks ago, and whose support of Hezbollah and other terrorists and declarations of genocidal intent toward Israel are notorious. When we read the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices--I will attach the Iran summary as an addendum--we should keep in mind that all these outrages and atrocities Ahmadinejad and his cronies commit on their own citizens are more evidence of the aggression Ahmadinejad and his cronies are fully prepared and preparing to commit on Israel, toward whom they don't even pretend to have anything other than the most malevolent intent.

As former Senators Coats and Robb and General Wald wrote in the Washington Post on September 21: ``By ratcheting up pressure on Iran before we sit down, Western negotiators would gain both sticks (additional measures) and carrots (repealing sanctions) with which to induce Iranian cooperation.''

This is exactly right: the time to move this bill is now, before the administration opens its talks with the Ahmadinejad government. This House is ready to send a clear signal to the Iranian regime--that, though our President is negotiating, this country has not weakened one bit its fundamental commitment to defend Israel, that we will not tolerate nuclear threats to Israel, and we will not permit the Ahmadinejad government to obtain nuclear weapons.

Madam Speaker, I urge you and Chairman Berman to move this bill, which now has over 325 co-sponsors, to the floor for passage by the full House as soon as possible. The bill is right, and the time is right.

2008 Country Reports, Iran Summary

The government's poor human rights record worsened, and it

continued to commit numerous serious abuses. The government

severely limited citizens' right to change their government

peacefully through free and fair elections. The government

executed numerous persons for criminal convictions as

juveniles and after unfair trials. Security forces were

implicated in custodial deaths and committed other acts of

politically motivated violence, including torture. The

government administered severe officially sanctioned

punishments, including death by stoning, amputation, and

flogging. Vigilante groups with ties to the government

committed acts of violence. Prison conditions remained poor.

Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained

individuals, often holding them incommunicado. Authorities

held political prisoners and intensified a crackdown against

women's rights reformers, ethnic minority rights activists,

student activists, and religious minorities. There was a lack

of judicial independence and fair public trials. The

government severely restricted civil liberties, including

freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, association,

movement, and privacy, and it placed severe restrictions on

freedom of religion. Official corruption and a lack of

government transparency persisted. Violence and legal and

societal discrimination against women, ethnic and religious

minorities, and homosexuals; trafficking in persons; and

incitement to anti-Semitism remained problems. The government

severely restricted workers' rights, including freedom of

association and the right to organize and bargain

collectively, and arrested numerous union organizers. Child

labor remained a serious problem. On December 18, for the

sixth consecutive year, the UN General Assembly (UNGA)

adopted a resolution on Iran expressing ``deep concern at

ongoing systematic violations of human rights.''

Madam Speaker, today I am re-introducing legislation that would close a loophole in the Department of Defense's whistleblowers' protection statue (10 U.S.C. Sec. 2409) and expand this safeguard to include the men and women of the DOD contracting business who report abuses to their superiors.

Under current law, an individual is only protected--and therefore eligible for remedies--if he or she reports workplace security concerns to ``a Member of Congress or an authorized official of an agency or the Department of Justice.'' While I understand the importance of encouraging individuals to take their concerns to certain authorities, I believe it is imperative that we include in this authority an employee's superiors.

It seems only natural, that once someone recognizes a problem within their work environment, they report it to their superiors. This is part of a normal progression of attempting to resolve issues and challenging tasks on the job. Few people initially contact their Congressman or the Department of Justice when they first observe an irregularity on the job.

It is also important to note that many former military members migrate to the security contracting industry. Many of these men and women have years of previous service to our nation, have grown to respect their chain of command and understand the benefit it can provide in the workplace. When they have come to the conclusion that additional steps must be taken or when they have identified a significant problem in the work environment, these professionals are trained and encouraged to report their concerns to their superiors to enable them to assess the situation and foster a solution.

Similarly, many in the federal security contracting industry come from a law enforcement background with a comparable command structure and respect for their superiors.

The current loophole was brought to my attention by a New Jersey resident who worked for a private security firm that guards military installations in my district and throughout the country. This individual witnessed and documented a number of events that raised serious concerns regarding the contractor's ability to ensure the safety and security of the base and the surrounding community.

At my request, the DOD IG performed an audit of the contract (Report No. D-2009-045) and verified many of the claims that this individual brought to my attention. The report found that the Navy was not able to provide documentation showing all contractor security guards had completed a basic background check--raising questions as to whether or not the required security checks were performed or completed for all security personnel guarding the munitions depot. There was also a problem with training, and an inability to determine whether or not the training was adequate. There was nothing in the files to find out whether a guard has had the training that is required by Federal law and Federal regulations.

The individual who brought this loophole to my attention reported to his employer what he believed--and what the IG report verified--were unfulfilled contract requirements that resulted in questions regarding the firm's ability to provide adequate security. After his boss dismissed his concerns, he then scheduled a meeting with the base security personnel to discus the matter. Before this meeting could occur, the individual was fired by the firm and barred from the base. At that time, he brought these concerns to me. However, since the law requires that a potential whistleblower be a current employee at the time he/she discloses pertinent information to a federal official, it was too late for him to be eligible for protections and/or remedies.

Specifically, my legislation would expand the universe of those to whom an individual can properly report concerns to include the individual's chain of command, before and after any retribution, so that the individual will be protected and have the right to be reinstated if an investigation shows that the individual was punished for bringing the matter to the attention of proper authorities.

The legislation I re-introduced today will ensure that those who identify problems within firms subcontracted by DOD are still afforded standard whistleblower protections even if they notify their employer about possible violations before they notify an agent of the federal government. The legislation does not require employees to notify their employer first and it does not preclude them from contacting federal officials, it simply protects employees who point out potential violations to their employer, the federal government or both. If an employee is dismissed prior to his/her notifying the government, but after notifying their employer, they will receive the necessary protections as well.

Base security is not an issue to be taken lightly--anywhere and including in my state of New Jersey. As we all recall, the New Jersey U.S. Attorney's office arrested five men who were planning to attack another New Jersey installation, Fort Dix. After a thorough and aggressive law enforcement effort this attempted terror attack was thwarted and the men were found guilty on charges of conspiracy to harm U.S. military personnel. Still, the vulnerabilities at our military bases exposed by this incident cannot be minimized or dismissed.

As we are all aware, in recent years the Department of Defense has looked increasingly to private security contractors to guard and police our military installations across the country. The men and women filling these positions deserve to be protected when they report violations and concerns to their superiors and especially if they are subsequently punished in an attempt by their employer to downplay or even cover up a violation. It is imperative that we amend the law to ensure that these employees are eligible for the same remedies as other whistleblowers.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2996: Making Appropriations for Interior and Environment for Fiscal Year 2010.

Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H. Smith

Bill Number: H.R. 2996

Account: Save America's Treasures

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Georgian Court University-

Address of Requesting Entity: Georgian Court University, 900 Lakewood Avenue, Lakewood, NJ 08701

Description of Request: The $200,000 in funding would be used to help preserve the Mansion at Georgian Court University, a building on both the State and National Registers of Historic Places. The building is used by over 23,000 New Jersey residents each year while attending various programs offered through the University's Department of Conferences and Special Events.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the immense spiritual achievement of Watchman Nee, a great pioneer of Christianity in China.

Christianity Today magazine recently honored Watchman Nee as one of the 100 most influential Christians of the twentieth century. Watchman Nee died over thirty years ago but his life and work continue to influence millions of Protestant Christians in China. Today more than three thousand churches outside of China, including several hundred in the United States, look to him as one of their religious and theological leaders.

Watchman Nee was an astonishingly devoted and energetic man, which I think can be seen from a capsule summary of his life. He became a Christian in 1922. In the 1930s, he traveled to Europe and North America, where he delivered sermons and speeches. Later his sermons were collected and published as books. By the late 1940s, Nee had become the most influential Chinese Christian writer, evangelist, and church builder. In 1952, the Chinese government imprisoned Nee and many other Christian leaders for their faith. Nee was never released, though during the 1960s and 1970s several of his books continued to grow in influence and popularity, particularly in the United States, and his best-known book, The Normal Christian Life, sold over one million copies world-wide and became a twentieth-century Christian classic. In 1972 he died at the age of 71 in a labor farm; his few surviving letters confirm that he remained faithful to God until the end.

Madam Speaker, it is estimated that China has more than one hundred million Christians, and millions of them consider themselves the spiritual heirs of Watchman Nee. Millions more are rightly proud of the contribution Watchman Nee made to global Christianity--he was the first Chinese Christian to exercise an influence on Western Christians--and indeed of his contribution to world spiritual culture. It is sad that the works of Watchman Nee are officially banned in China--even as they are being discovered afresh by a new generation of Western Christians. It is my hope that Watchman Nee's collected works can be freely published and distributed within China.

After Watchman Nee's death, when his niece came to collect his few possessions, she was given a scrap of paper that a guard had found by his bed. What was written on that scrap may serve as Watchman Nee's testament: ``Christ is the Son of God Who died for the redemption of sinners and was resurrected after three days. This is the greatest truth in the universe. I die because of my belief in Christ. Watchman Nee.''

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY 10 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act.

Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H. Smith

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Project name: Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Simulation Integration Laboratory

Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: RF PRODUCTS, INC.

Address of Requesting Entity: 1500 Davis Street, Camden, NJ 08103

Description of Request: Provides additional operational connectivity capabilities onboard aircraft that work to ensure the safety of ground personnel and prevent unplanned events including fratricide and wrong target hits. This capability will allow more information to be transmitted to the aircraft, such as an injured soldiers' medical record, or to the ground forces, such as real-time enemy locations.

Project name: Marine Mammal Detection System to Support Navy Training

Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Integrated Systems Solutions, Inc. (ISSI)

Address of Requesting Entity: Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Route 547, Building 195/Hangar 6, Lakehurst, NJ 08733

Description of Request: Providing the Navy with new technology to track marine mammals in coastal training areas from the air--providing habitat protection, offering environmentally enhanced tracking alternatives and saving training time and money. The funding will be allocated as follows: $1,618,477 for salaries; $148,715 for expendables such as aviation fuel; $83,800 for direct travel; $107,864 for direct material such as sensors and other electronic equipment; and $41,144 for support equipment vehicles.

I thank my good friend, Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for her leadership, and I want to thank my good friend Eni Faleomavaega and, of course, Chairman Payne, who is the author of the resolution before us.

Madam Speaker, as ranking member of the subcommittee and as a cosponsor of this resolution, I share Chairman Payne's deep and abiding concern regarding child survival, which was the theme of this year's event.

For the record, as a Member of Congress, I've worked for most of the last 29 years on child survival initiatives. I began in the early 1980s with the four pillars of child survival and with the famous Jim Grant, the former UNICEF director, who was a passionate defender of those very low-cost interventions that could literally save lives--including vaccinations, oral rehydration therapy, growth monitoring, and breastfeeding, which can effectuate miracles in the lives of children and their families.

Madam Speaker, there is a universal recognition that our children are our Nation's most precious, vulnerable citizens who demand every protection and safeguard society can provide. In no way is this protection and assistance needed more today than on the continent of Africa.

Africa is home to just over 10 percent of the world's population; yet it accounts for some 44 percent of all children who die before they reach the age of 5. There are estimates that some 4.6 million African children under 5 lose their lives each and every year. The circumstances under which a baby is born and the first few days of life outside the mother's womb are critical.

In the 2009 State of the World's Children report, the U.N. Children's Fund reports that, in 2004, the highest rates of neonatal deaths-- deaths within the first 28 days after birth--occurred in West and Central Africa at the rate of some 45 per 1,000 live births. Eastern and Southern Africa also had the highest rates at 36 neonatal deaths per 1,000 live births. That compares to about 3 deaths per 1,000 live births in industrialized nations.

Even within this short window of time, there are great variations in the baby's likelihood of survival. The greatest risk is during the first day after birth when an estimated 25 to 45 percent of neonatal mortalities occur. Almost three-fourths of all neonatal deaths occur within the first week after birth.

As UNICEF points out, a baby's chance of survival is not determined at the moment of birth. The report points out ``the health of mothers and newborns is intricately related, so preventing deaths requires, in many cases, implementing the same interventions.'' Among those interventions are adequate nutrition, prenatal care for the unborn child, antenatal care, skilled birth attendants, and access to emergency obstetric care when necessary.

Basically, we now know that we must treat expectant mothers and their unborn children as two patients to ensure the survival and the sustainable health of both. Therefore, the resolution correctly emphasizes the necessity of improving child, newborn and maternal health in order to ensure child survival in Africa.

Again, I want to thank Mr. Payne for introducing the resolution.