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 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act.

Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H. Smith

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Project name: Wreck Pond Clean-Up

Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Investigations

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: Jacob K. Javits Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 2109, New York, NY 10278-0090.

Description of Request: Enable the Army Corps to continue and further its partnerships with state and local officials in the effort to fully clear toxic contamination from Wreck Pond. Overflow contaminants from Wreck Pond pollute the Ocean and such pollution has been responsible for more than 80% of all beach closings on the New Jersey shore. Planned remedies such as dredging will reduce flooding, ensure improved water quality, protect ocean swimmers and prevent beach closings.

Project name: Assunpink Creek Flood Mitigation in Hamilton Township

Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Section 205

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 of Request: Investigate flooding problems along the Assunpink Creek in Hamilton Township, NJ--an area which has frequent water control problems and environmental degradation--to save structures and contents from flood damage, alleviate cleanup costs for residents in this highly urbanized setting of the area.

Project name: Assunpink Creek Day Lighting Initiative in Trenton

Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Section 1135

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 of Request: The project seeks to day light Assunpink Creek along the Broad Street culvert--which connects various greenway areas and transportation facilities. The corps reports that this will improve anadromous fish migration along Assunpink Creek in Trenton. The project also benefits businesses adjacent to the site and provides recreational, historical and educational opportunities for the community.

Project name: Delaware River Bank Protection, Philadelphia to Trenton

Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Operation and Maintenance

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 of Request: Maintain and inspect bank protection works, provide bridge reconstruction and perform maintenance dredging of lower reach and turning basin. This project will restore safe and economical navigating depths in the Florence Township area. Funding will be used for maintenance dredging of lower reach and turning basin and to construct three upland disposal sites, and for disposal area maintenance & construction and placement of rip-rap material.

Project name: New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway

Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Operation and Maintenance

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 of Request: Provides a safe, reliable, and efficient navigation channel for the East Coast's largest and the 5th most valuable commercial fishing fleet in the US, as well as nine US Coast Guard Stations. This funding will be used to perform maintenance dredging of the entrance channel.

Project name: NJ Shore Protection for Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet

Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Construction

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: Jacob K. Javits Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 2109, New York, NY 10278-0090.

Description of Request: Funding would be used to continue the renourishment phase of the Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, NJ shore protection project. Beach replenishment remedies have been extremely effective in the section of the Jersey shore and ongoing funding is needed to sustain the progress made through the initial successful federal/state shared investment. New Jersey's beaches are a vital recreational and economic resource. Replenishment and sustained maintenance of healthy beaches help protect residents, local businesses, tourist attractions and natural habitats.

Project name: Comprehensive Restoration of the Delaware River

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 of Request: Continue the Delaware River plan formulation and evaluation of alternative solutions and mitigation remedies to the region's problems regarding flooding along the river and tributaries. This project will help alleviate significant flood damage for residents while providing ecosystem restoration, protection and enhancement and restoration of public lands.

Project name: Manasquan River Maintenance

Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Operation and Maintenance

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 of Request: Manasquan River connects the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway with the Atlantic Ocean. This navigation project provides for 2 jetties; a channel 14 feet deep and 250 feet wide from the ocean to the inner end of the north jetty; and a channel 12 feet deep and 100 to 300 feet wide extending to within 300 feet of the railroad bridge. This funding will be used to perform maintenance dredging of the channel.

Mr. Speaker, it was Albert Einstein who said that ``the most powerful force in the universe is compound interest.''

That's great, Mr. Speaker, when compound interest is working for you--in building a nest egg for your children's college costs or for retirement. But when compound interest is working against you, it's catastrophic.

It is absolutely devastating, especially for a Nation on the intermediate and long term, when that Nation recklessly spends taxpayers' money and causes huge, unsustainable deficits.

As of June 30, the national debt was $11.5 trillion--over $37,000 per person. In June alone, the deficit rose by over $220 billion, a year's worth of deficits in 1 month! Now CBO says that the number, the total debt to the United States, will double in the next 10 years. It took 180 years for us to get to that $11.5 trillion. Under President Obama's massive spending it will double in just 10 years. Nothing puts our economy at greater risk of implosion and job loss than unsustainable debt.

Madam Speaker, Ms. Norton earlier suggested that prohibiting funding for abortion, over which we have constitutional jurisdiction, is none of our affair. I would respectfully submit, Madam Speaker, defending innocent and inconvenient children, protecting them from violence, is always our affair.

Human rights, and the defense of human rights, protecting the weak and the most vulnerable, is always our affair. So I would respectfully ask Members to reject this rule.

Last week, President Obama told, of all people, the Pope, that he wanted to reduce abortion. Oh, really? This week, pursuant to Mr. Obama's 2010 budget policy request, the House is getting ready to reverse a longstanding pro-life policy that prohibits taxpayer funding for abortions except in the rare cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

Today's vote isn't just about whether pro-life Americans will be forced to subsidize dismembering unborn children to death, or paying to poison unborn children to death, or delivering

premature children to effectuate their destruction, children who are too immature to withstand life outside of the womb. Our vote today is also about government policies that are hurting women, abandoning women to the abortionists. We know that abortion hurts women. The evidence grows every day.

Retaining current law, and that's what the Lincoln Davis, Todd Tiahrt amendment would have done and should do if this rule goes down, actually reduces abortion. Some of my colleagues have already pointed this out. It couldn't be more clear. The evidence is in. When you deny funding for abortion, the numbers go down. So when President Obama says he wants to reduce abortions, the answer is to take away the public subsidy.

My friend on the other side said the bill restricts no Federal funds. We have jurisdiction over all the funds with regard to this issue. If we want to save a life, please don't use that kind of very thin and, I think, very shallow argument. Saving a life in the District of Columbia is no different than saving a life anywhere in the United States of America. These are our children. We need to protect and safeguard those children from the violence of abortion.

If you want to reduce abortion, Madam Speaker, and colleagues, don't subsidize it. The Gutmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's research arm, has said that between 20 and 35 percent do not get abortions under the Medicaid program because of the Hyde amendment.

There are millions of children walking in America. There are thousands of children in the District of Columbia who today are enjoying their summer vacation, playing ball, having fun, getting ready to go back to school in late August and early September, because the subsidy was not there to effectuate their very painful demise through abortion.

Abortion is child abuse. It is violence against children. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, for almost two decades, Congress has banned the use of taxpayer funds for abortion in the District of Columbia except in the exceedingly rare and tragic cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother.

President Obama tells us he wants to reduce abortion. Well, one of the most effective and proven ways to reduce abortion is not to fund it. The evidence is compelling. And, frankly, it's logical.

The research arm of Planned Parenthood, an organization that itself every year performs over 305,000 abortions in its own clinics--a staggering loss of children's lives--their research arm, the Guttmacher Institute, has made it absolutely clear that when taxpayer funding is not available, between 20 and 35 percent of Medicaid abortions that would have been procured simply don't occur and that these children go on to be born.

Today, there are thousands of children in the District of Columbia and millions throughout the country who live, attend schools, have boyfriends and girlfriends, get married and have their own kids--dream and hope because taxpayer subsidies didn't effectuate their demise.

Pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, Congress has the authority and, I would respectfully submit, the obligation and duty, especially from a human rights perspective, to set policy as it relates to how funds are used in either protecting or destroying children. We should not be subsidizing the killing of unborn children.

By definition, abortion is infant mortality. Ultrasound technology, the rise of prenatal medicine has shattered the myth that unborn children are somehow not human, nor alive.

Dr. Alveda King, Mr. Chairman, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, had two abortions. She now leads an organization known as the Silent No More Campaign, made up exclusively of women who have had abortions.

She has made it very clear that, after every abortion, one baby dies--two if they're twins--and the woman is wounded.

The intermediate and long-term psychological damage and physical damage to women is underreported and underappreciated, but as she and so many others have pointed out, it is real and frightening. Dr. King has said, How can the dream survive? She was talking about her late uncle, the late Dr. Martin Luther King. How can the dream survive-- these are her words--if we murder children?

Abortion methods, Mr. Chairman, are gruesome. The cheap sophistry of choice, the euphemisms that are cynically employed to cloak it, can't mask a dismemberment abortion that hacks a child to death and can't mask poison shots that chemically burn and kill an unborn child. Abortion is infant mortality. We should not be funding it. There will be children who will die if this legislation becomes law simply because the subsidies are there to effectuate their deaths.

I hope Members will vote ``no'' on the bill.

Dr. Fleming, thank you very much for your leadership. It is so reassuring in so many ways having a distinguished medical doctor like yourself leading the fight, as you have done so ably, and to have some of our other docs who are speaking out so eloquently on behalf of the most fundamental human right of all, and that is the right to life. I find it appalling--and I know you do and our colleagues who are here tonight--that unborn children and the preciousness and the innate value of their lives is so easily cast aside by this Congress, regrettably by the abortion President, President Obama, who has systematically, since he has taken office, through policy reversal, through policy reinterpretation and through legislative proposals that he has made, including one that passed today that will force taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand in the District of Columbia. And we know when that happens, there will be more abortions, and the tragedy of that is beyond words. Young boys and girls who will never taste the sunshine, never see the light of day, never enjoy the everyday happiness, joy and challenges that all of us face. Their lives will have been snuffed out, killed in a very--as Joe Pitts just said a moment ago--a violent procedure, as you know so well as a medical doctor, of dismembering a child. I hope the American people finally at long last rip away the facade, the veil of secrecy that has so enveloped the abortion issue all of these years, whereby children are hacked to death by the abortionist, poisoned, as you know so well, with chemical poisons that effectuate the death of a fragile innocent body, a little child who wants to live and yet he's killed.

I would also point out that this Congress almost 4 years ago passed legislation, got 250 votes in favor of legislation that I offered, cosponsored by Mr. Pitts and many other colleagues, that basically said that unborn children feel pain. The evidence is overwhelming, at least from the 20th week on and probably before. And while this hacking maneuver, the D&E abortion is occurring, the child in that first few minutes of that gruesome, brutal decapitation--but it starts with arms and legs--suffers and feels excruciating pain. And as Dr. Sunny Anand has said, who is one of the pioneers in anesthesia for unborn children for benign reasons, surgeries and fixing children or at least helping to ameliorate spina bifida and other problems, you have to give anesthesia to these children or they feel it. Well, the abortionist has no such concerns and brutally kills the child.

Let me just say a couple of points, and again, we have got to ask the questions, and Americans really have to ask the question, why the rush to enact Mr. Obama's exceedingly expensive, complex and potentially ruinous restructuring plan without the benefit of comprehensive hearings on it and a thorough vetting of the actual bill text, rushing right to a markup before the Americans can look at it and decide what are the consequences, short, intermediate and long term to the legislation?

ObamaCare, as we now are seeing so clearly, is the greatest threat ever to the lives and the well-being of unborn children since Roe v. Wade itself legalized abortion right up to the moment of birth. We have made serious, modest but serious, attempts that have passed at the State and Federal level to mitigate abortions' reach by denying Federal funding, by putting in things like women's right-to-know laws, parental notification, waiting periods, all of which have lessened and reduced the number of abortions. All of that is at risk right now with this ObamaCare recommendation.

Despite Mr. Obama's oft-repeated statement that he wants to reduce abortion, just last week he told that to the Pope, a couple weeks before that to a big audience at Notre Dame University, and he says it over and over again. Well, words should have meaning. They should have consequences and actions should comport with those words. And in this case, they are diametrically opposed. He says one thing and does precisely the opposite.

The ugly truth is that if his so-called health care reform care bill, if enacted, will lead to millions of additional deaths to children and millions of mothers will be wounded. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute has found that between 20 and 35 percent of Medicare-eligible women who would choose abortion carry their pregnancies to term when public funding is not available.

I remember when Henry Hyde was told, and it was like a revelation, the great Henry Hyde, the human rights leader, the finest orator perhaps ever in the history of this institution and the Hyde amendment author that proscribes Federal funding for abortion in the Medicaid program, when he learned that, by this extrapolation, that it was really true that millions of kids had survived because of his legislative leadership, and Jim Oberstar who was there that day and helped craft that legislation of the Hyde amendment in the 1970s, Henry Hyde had a big tear in his eye, knowing that there were kids walking all across America, now some of those kids, young adults, having

their own children because the money wasn't there to facilitate their violent death.

Henry Hyde and all of us who have been part of this know that because of these efforts, uphill as they are, children will survive, and mothers will avert this irreversible decision. ObamaCare opens the spigot of public funding and does more to facilitate abortion than any action since Roe, and this is the big issue. And I hope every American realizes, despite all of the cheap sophistry that is being thrown about here, what is at the core of this is an abortion promotion and the facilitation of it and spending for it.

Despite the fact that a majority of Americans don't want to fund abortion, and every poll shows that, the Obama-Dingell-Kennedy bill will force every taxpayer and premium payer in the United States to pay for and facilitate every abortion in the country.

ObamaCare will absolutely mandate abortion on demand, even in private insurance plans, which will lead to many more abortions. On April 2, Secretary Sebelius admitted that most private plans ``do not cover abortion services except in certain instances.'' That radically changes under ObamaCare. The legislation vests new, and you have gotten into this, Doctor, new huge, sweeping powers into an Obama-appointed committee that will be crafted after the legislation is signed into law, establishing essential health benefits all plans must include.

That is the dirty little secret about this bill. They are waiting until after it is all inked and signed by the President, and then these so-called experts will say, this is what every minimum plan needs to have in it, and we have no doubt whatsoever that abortion will be in the mainstay of what they provide.

NARAL's president has said, If indeed we can advance a panel or commission, then I'm very optimistic about reproductive health being part of the entire package. In 2007, Mr. Obama told Planned Parenthood, Reproductive care is essential care, we are absolutely in favor of reproductive care. But then as Hillary Clinton said in response to a question I posed at the Foreign Affairs Committee, she said, of course, reproductive health includes access to abortion.

So they use word games to cloak and stealth it. But the bottom line is that what they are talking about is abortion on demand.

Pro-abortion organizations believe they are on the verge of the biggest expansion of abortion ever. The president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice said, Let there be no mistake, basic health care includes abortion service.

ObamaCare will also exponentially expand the number of abortion mills in this country by requiring that any insurance provider contract with essential community providers. And guess what? Planned Parenthood, which itself does over 300,000 abortions every year, a staggering loss of children's lives, many of those children are from adolescents, young minor girls who get abortions there, often without parental notification or consent, on June 17 billed itself in a media blitz as essential community health care providers.

So they will be integrated with the health care insurance companies and a number of clinics which have dwindled and gone down over the years, as well as doctors willing to commit these grizzly acts will grow because there will be a mandate from Uncle Sam, from the White House and from this Congress if this is allowed to happen.

So I just want to say to my colleagues one last thing. In the early 1980s I was the prime sponsor of the Federal funding ban under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. We had a very big floor fight in this battle. We won it. President Reagan signed it into law, and the government plan that I'm in, and I suspect all of you are in, and many government employees, if not all, but most, all of a sudden did not provide for abortions.

In the first year, when President Clinton had his Presidency, and the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate, we lost that rider in the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. The Clinton administration swung into action and ordered all of the insurance companies to carry abortion. There was no language in the bill, no pro-life language, no pro-abortion language, no language, but that meant they could order, just like they did with the Hyde amendment under President Carter in the 1970s that necessitated the Hyde amendment in the first place.

So let me say to my colleagues on the Democratic side, and perhaps those on the Republican side who haven't really gotten it yet, if there is no language in here proscribing abortion, explicit language, it will be there. The Benefits Advisory Committee will order it, and as we have found with public funding, no language equals abortion subsidization, which leads to a significant skyrocketing of abortions in this country.

We want fewer abortions. We want to affirm life and love them both, mother and child. So I thank you, Dr. Fleming, for giving us this opportunity to hopefully alert the American people that the abortion industry is looking really, in a very quick way, in a hurry-up offense, to take the most offensive acts against children, innocent children, and with their taxpayer dollars, yours and mine.

I yield back, Dr. Fleming.

Dr. Fleming, thank you and say to my friend from Ohio, thank you for that extraordinarily eloquent statement, as usual.

Let me just make a couple of points, Doctor. The abortion industry is seeking a bailout. This is the abortion bailout bill and it needs to be seen as that. The number of abortions are going down because of ultrasound and because of educational efforts. This would mandate private insurers to cover abortion--and public as well--expand venues, the killing centers, to do abortions.

But there's something that I would like your take on. The former director of the National Abortion Federation has said that the number of abortions are going down, also, because there are physicians who either can't or won't perform this, quote, essential service in her view. The American Medical News reported that abortion is a matter of choice in this country, not only for women but for physicians as well. All over the country most physicians are choosing not to do it. The San Francisco Chronicle has said those who run abortion clinics, even in large cities, say that recruiting doctors is now their most serious problem. To which we say, thank God that doctors are doing what the Hippocratic oath has told them and admonished them to do.

I would like your take on that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3183. The bill includes funding to allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to take a greater role in ongoing efforts to fix significant recurring environmental hazards posed by Wreck Pond, located in my district.

On an average summer day, Wreck Pond is a picture-perfect postcard. However, just below the surface lie dangerous concentrations of high levels of fecal coliforms as well as other nasty contaminants. When it rains, this poison goes onto the beaches, and it has caused, on average, about 80 percent of all beach closings in New Jersey in the past few years.

When Wreck Pond floods, this poison pours into the basements and first floors of nearby homes, which I have seen myself on several occasions. Immediate action is necessary to improve the water quality conditions and mitigate the serious health and environmental hazards caused by its pollution to local residents.

The Corps' work at Wreck Pond will be greatly enhanced and proceed to construction earlier than normally anticipated because of extensive analysis already completed by other agencies at the Federal, State and local level, including work of a $400,000 EPA study, surveillance work by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, as well as the State's installation of provisional storm water outflow pipes and the upstream watershed management programs.

These actions have been effective. However, they are not the best long-term solution, and a permanent fix can be achieved only after the Corps begins its work.

I want to especially thank my good friend and colleague, Mr. Frelinghuysen, for his work, and Chairman Oberstar, of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who actually made a trip to Wreck Pond in 2007 to view this himself. I thank them both. Rodney, thank you for your great work on this.

I thank my good friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, last night, Mr. Stupak and I respectfully requested that an amendment reinstating the Mexico City Policy be made in order so that the full House would have the opportunity to vote up or down on this critically important issue.

This year's Foreign Ops Appropriations bill increases population control funding by a whopping 40 percent over the 2008 levels to a record $648 million. Our amendment would simply ensure that this huge allocation of taxpayer grant money not be awarded to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform abortions on demand or lobby for abortion on demand in developing countries.

Today, most African and Latin countries protect the lives of their unborn children, and the real threat to those laws and policies are coming from the United States and European nongovernmental organizations and the money behind them.

Indeed, prior to January, Mr. Speaker, the pro-life Mexico City Policy guaranteed that unborn children in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere not be put at risk of death by the NGOs that we fund.

Every human life is precious, Mr. Speaker, and sacred and worthy of respect. No one, no one is expendable. Thus, family planning funds and the NGOs that they empower cannot be allowed to be the Trojan Horse for a global abortion industry.

On an encouraging note, Americans agree with our efforts to reinstate the Mexico City Policy. The Gallup Poll recently found by a margin of 2-1, 65 percent to 35 percent, Americans oppose President Obama's Executive order reversing the Mexico City Policy. They support his other Executive orders, but not that one.

Another Gallup Poll found that, for the first time, 51 percent to 42 percent, Americans are identifying as pro-life. Ultrasound technology-- the window to the womb--is finally shattering the myth that an unborn child is somehow not a person.

Mr. Speaker, stripped of its many euphemisms, abortion is violence against children and often harms women emotionally and psychologically and physically. Abortion methods either dismember the fragile body of a baby to death or poisons the infant or chemically induces premature labor, leaving the immature child unable to cope with his or her new environment.

You know, in Congress we often speak and enact laws and policies designed to reduce infant mortality, and that's a wonderful and necessary goal. Can we not see or appreciate or understand that abortion is infant mortality?

An unborn child's immaturity and dependence should in no way mitigate, negate, or nullify an unborn child's inherent humanity. Human rights ought to be about inclusion, not exclusion, especially of the weakest and the most vulnerable.

Finally, can we not see or appreciate or understand that birth is an event and not the beginning of a child's life? And the stunning breakthroughs over the last three decades in treating unborn children who are diagnosed with diseases or disabilities only brings into sharp focus that the child in the womb must be regarded as a patient in need of benign and compassionate interventions. Not poison shots or razor- sharp curettes that kill, but medicines and procedures that cure.

The Mexico City Policy holds children harmless in our family planning programs throughout the world. Tragically, the rule before us precludes so much as a vote on the Mexico City Policy.

Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that the right to life is the most fundamental human right issue on Earth. Unfortunately, abortion and the promotion of abortion is the only violation of that basic human right that has the audacity to call itself a right.

I therefore will be voting ``no'' on the rule as well as the underlying bill.

Would the gentleman yield?

I'm sure it was unwitting, but my friend from the other side of the isle misspoke. Just to make very clear, the population account, the money that was allocated in FY 2008, was approximately $460 million. It is now at $648 million. That is approximately a 40 percent increase. And then other moneys potentially could be going to these foreign nongovernmental organizations that promote abortion as well, like Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes International, and others. So we have a very serious problem. They are American surrogates in foreign countries. They speak for us. They certainly don't speak and act for millions of pro-life Americans.

Yes, do family planning. Our amendment would leave that in tact. It would not touch the amount of money for family planning. We ought argue that abortion is not family planning and has no legitimate place in any compassionate program of health care. It is the killing of an unborn child.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of HR 2997: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Act for FY 2010.

Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H. Smith

Bill Number: HR 2997

Account: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--Salaries and Expenses

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: State of New Jersey, Department of Agriculture

Address of Requesting Entity: 369 South Warren Street, P.O. Box 330, Trenton, NJ 08625

Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 for the New Jersey Gypsy Moth Pest Management Program to support and enhance gypsy moth control on affected communities and public lands. Funds will be used to cost-share aerial treatments borne by local municipalities to develop a web-based interactive online map showing the distribution of gypsy moths in New Jersey and proposed treatment areas. The funds will also be used for technical support, salaries, and vehicle operation.

Mr. Chair, today I am offering an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act that will ensure that the Department of Defense has done their due diligence and that my constituents have access to information needed regarding a DOD proposal that will significantly impact our local community.

By way of background, over 20 years ago, the Navy entered into a Section 801 Housing agreement to build 300 units on Naval Weapons Station Earle. Because of changed home porting plans initiated in the 1990's, there are simply no sailors or dependents to live there. When Colts Neck was put into my district in 2003, the units were already 75 percent unoccupied.

Naval Weapons Station Earle's mostly vacant 300 units of housing at Laurelwood has long been--and is today--unnecessary, obsolete and a financial burden to the Navy. Regrettably, the Navy is still in a bind and has

made one bad decision after another in an attempt to recoups losses they failed to properly anticipate in 1988.

Despite the fact that there are next to no tenants at Laurelwood, the contract stipulates mandatory federal payment to the developer-- estimated to be $3.5 million a year--regardless of occupancy.

At issue today are the deeply troubling consequences imposed by an egregiously flawed contract. The so-called out-lease period which becomes effective in 2010 and ends in 2040 makes all 300 housing units available to virtually anyone with rent money, with a guarantee of unimpeded access inside one of the most sensitive munitions depots in the country.

The Navy's EIS and the ROD should have been comprehensive reviews of all relevant challenges, dangers, and costs associated with the proposed matriculation of Laurelwood to civilian use. They were not.

Both documents fell short in addressing the myriad of valid concerns raised by the community including security, education and transportation, to name just a few. The Navy initiated its review process of Laurelwood as far back as 2002 so the questions left unanswered by their ``analysis'' are numerous and troubling.

On education, for example, their study offers us no assurances whatsoever of anything close to fairness and equity. Under the Navy plan, local communities are left to educate hundreds of non-military children for whom the towns can not adequately plan without proper numbers. The Navy's assumption that a third of these children would be educated in public schools is unsupported and masks the real problems that these schools will face when the influx of between 300 and 600 new students happens. My amendment is necessary to ensure that the school boards have all relevant information and can plan and budget accordingly.

The Navy has been extraordinarily myopic on the paramount issue of security and both the EIS and the ROD are devoid of any meaningful analysis of the true costs to the Navy and surrounding jurisdictions if Laurelwood rents to civilians who are then able to drive onto and through the base.

We cannot hermetically seal our military bases but, in my view, the Navy's proposal unwittingly does the reverse: it creates vulnerabilities where they do not exist today. It compromises national security and unnecessarily puts the people on and around Earle in potential danger.

Shortly after federal prosecutors revealed that a group of young men were planning to infiltrate Fort Dix, which is also located in my Congressional District, and kill as many servicemembers as possible, Congress recognized the vulnerability of our military bases and took steps to ensure that those who are seeking access to our bases are thoroughly checked and accounted for.

However, the Navy now plans to remove these restrictions and allow any member of the public to drive onto and through the largest munitions depot on the East Coast.

Incredibly, the Navy believes that ``impacts to security from the proposed action are not anticipated.'' In my opinion--which is supported by a Department of Defense Inspector General (IG) report I requested earlier this year--the Navy is not providing adequate security at the base now. I requested this report after a security guard at the base raised concerns regarding the performance of the security contractors at Earle (D-2009-045). The IG produced troubling findings. They stated that the Navy did not know whether all contractor security guards had completed a background check or that they had completed all training required by the contract.

The Navy's security plan places undue faith in a fence as a means to deterring or mitigating access and appears to rely simply on adjusting already inadequate patrols currently performed by private security guards at no perceived increase in cost.

The Navy believes that ``additional security personnel will likely be required to patrol the additional perimeter fencing,'' but gives no clue whatsoever as to how many and at what cost. Again, this information--which GAO will provide in accordance to my amendment--is needed if a prudent decision is to be reached.

It is worth noting that two of the other installations that are approaching the outlease deadline share similar security concerns. Port Hueneme's security officials believe that ``allowing the general public to live in the units would, at a minimum, indirectly affect the mission of the base'' and require ``additional police officers and patrols, and an increased security budget.'' Ft. Hood recently required that the renters of their Section 801 Housing units must undergo a background check as a condition of residency--although given the demand for this housing by military personnel, no background checks have been conducted or are expected.

In my view, the 1988 contract itself--written long before the bitter lessons of the USS Cole, the Khobar Tower bombings, the destruction of our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and 9/11--fails to anticipate and its authors could not have adequately understood as we do today the dangers inherent in proximity, enhanced 24/7 surveillance of potential targets, and the proliferation of sleeper terror cells.

The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with instances of dangers unrecognized, unacknowledged, and unanticipated that led to the worst terrorist attack on US soil ever.

I strongly believe that the Navy is in the process of compounding its initial 1988 contracting mistake with a far more serious one that is fraught with significant danger for Navy personnel and the people residing in adjacent communities.

Until now, the security of my constituents and the costs that they will bear when this proposal is implemented has been deferred to the interest that has a conflict of interest: the Navy.

My amendment would change that. It will ensure a thorough and comprehensive study of all relevant factors. It will allow our local community to adequately plan and budget for the impacts of the decision--which they overwhelmingly oppose--and I urge its adoption.

I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding and for his help and the chairman's help in making this amendment, my amendment, part of the en bloc amendment.

This amendment requires the Department of Defense, Mr. Chairman, to report to Congress on the plight of our service members who, along with their children, suffer from intrafamilial international child abduction. The international movement of our servicemembers make them especially vulnerable to the risks of international child abduction.

Attorneys familiar with this phenomenon estimate that there are approximately 25 to 30 new cases of international child abductions affecting our servicemembers every year. One man, Commander Paul Toland, recently came into my office largely because of the publicity about David Goldman and his son, Sean Goldman, the Brazilian case that I have been working on. He heard about it, and he came in and said, You have got to hear my story. And it is a heartbreaking story.

Commander Toland was deployed to Yokohama, Japan. He and his wife, regrettably, had a split.

She is now tragically deceased. And yet for approximately 6 long years, he has been trying to get his daughter back and has been unable to. The custody of his child is with the maternal grandparents. Again, he has not been able to get his own child back. Commander Toland received poor advice from the Naval Legal Services Officer on how to adjudicate the case. Have others?

Be advised, The amendment will not entangle the Department of Defense in custody disputes. Rather it will instruct the Department of Defense to study and produce a comprehensive report to Congress about what they are doing to ensure that our servicemembers are receiving preventive education, legal protections and other assistance needed to avoid and, when necessary, resolve the international abduction of their children. This is the least we can do for those who serve our nation.

Our servicemen and women risk much in the service of our Nation. We must do all that we can to mitigate the risks to their families. I thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment, especially the ranking member and the distinguished Chair.

I rise in support of the amendment to require the Department of Defense (DOD) to report to Congress on the plight of our service members who, along with their children, suffer from intra-familial and international child abduction. The international movements of our service men and women make them especially vulnerable to the risks of international child abduction. This amendment will require a study to pinpoint the extent of the problem within our armed services and what the DOD is doing to prevent and remedy international child abduction within the armed services.

The particular issue of international child abduction came to my attention with the Sean Goldman case. As many of you know, Sean Goldman was abducted to Brazil by his mother for a family vacation when Sean was four years old. His mother divorced his father and refused to return the child to the United States, which was Sean's country of habitual residence and consequently should have been the legal jurisdiction in which custody was decided. Sean's father has been fighting for the return of his son for five years. Sean's mother is now deceased, and Sean's father still cannot get him back.

Since my involvement with this case, I have been receiving calls from parents left behind in an international child abduction--the particular plight of military parents caught my attention. Military parents are at heightened risk because they often marry when they are serving this country abroad, and may live in numerous countries, including the United States, while they build a family with their spouse. Upon divorce, one parent sometimes whisks the child away to a legal jurisdiction unfavorable to the left behind parent.

Such was the case of Commander Paul Toland, whose infant daughter was abducted by his estranged wife while he was stationed on our naval base in Yokohama, Japan. When he sought help from the Naval Legal Services Office on base, he was told to hire a local lawyer and deal with the issue himself in Japanese courts.

Whether through lack of training by the DOD or lack of attention by the personnel, this very wrong advice from the Naval Legal Services Office directed Commander Toland to

give up the legal jurisdiction of his home state and engage with a foreign legal jurisdiction that has NEVER returned a child to the United States. Commander Toland's former wife is now deceased, his daughter lives with her ailing grandmother in Japan, and he still cannot get her back. The fight has been six long years, and it continues with little hope.

Attorneys familiar with this phenomena estimate that there are approximately 25-30 new cases of international child abductions affecting our service men and women every year. Our service men and women risk much in their service to our nation. The DOD must do what it can to minimize their risks.

This amendment would not entangle the Department of Defense in custody disputes. Rather, this amendment will instruct the DOD to share with Congress what they are doing to ensure that our service men and women are receiving the preventative education, legal protection, and other assistance needed to avoid and resolve the international abduction of their children. This amendment asks the Department of Defense to report to Congress on the following items:

The total number of children abducted from military parents;

The total number of children who were later returned to left behind military parents;

What the DOD did to facilitate any of the returns, and what sorts of assistance the DOD offers to military parents--such as psychological counseling, financial assistance, legal services, and leave for travel;

The means through which available services, information, and activities relating to international child abductions are communicated to left behind military parents;

The training provided to those who supply legal assistance to the left behind military parents;

Measures taken by the DOD to prevent abductions;

Which of the Status of Forces Agreements negotiated with host countries are written to protect the military parent's ability to adjudicate abduction cases in the parent's state of legal residence;

The feasibility of including in present and future Status of Forces Agreements a framework for the resolution of child abduction;

Identification of potential strategies for engagement with host countries with high incidence of international child abductions;

Whether the DOD coordinates on abductions with other departments, such as the U.S. Department of State;

Whether the DOD currently partners with, or intends to partner with, civilian experts on international child abduction;

Whether the DOD has engaged in joint efforts with the U.S. Department of State to provide a forum, such as a conference, for left behind military parents to share experiences, network and develop best practices for securing the return of abducted children;

An assessment as to how international child abductions impact the force readiness of our service members.

We all want to do right by our service men and women. The study called for by this amendment will give us a window into what we are already doing, and what we can do better to protect our service men and women from the frustration and anguish of international child abduction.

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 Homeland Security Appropriation Act.

Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H Smith

Bill Number: H.R. 2892

Account: Federal Emergency Management Agency's Pre-Disaster Mitigation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Trenton

Address of Requesting Entity: 319 East State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608

Description of Request: Funding will be used to help fortify the City's water filtration plant from ongoing flooding and contamination risk. The plant is responsible for providing safe drinking water to 225,000 people in Trenton, Hamilton and surrounding Mercer County areas.

Work supported with the $300,000 in federal funds--which the city of Trenton will match with $100,000--will protect the drinking water supply by eliminating vulnerabilities to contamination resulting from future flood events. The city will use it to waterproof open areas, relocate vulnerable controls and electronics, and make improvements to the sump pump system and the Chlorination storage facility.

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. 2847, Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2010:

Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H. Smith

Bill Number: H.R. 2847

Account: Office of Justice Programs--Juvenile Justice

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Brick Township Police Athletic League (PAL), 60 Drum Point Road, Brick, NJ 08723

Description of Request: Brick PAL offers after-school and summer camp programs to keep students engaged in educational, social and cultural programs in the critical hours while parents are at work. The amount of $250,000 listed in H.R. 2847 will be used for hiring counselors, equipment, educational trips, scholarships and general operations of the programs.

Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H. Smith

Bill Number: H.R. 2847

Account: Office of Justice Programs-Juvenile Justice

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: D.A.R.E. New Jersey, Inc., 292 Prospect Street, Cranbury, NJ 08512

Description of Request: D.A.R.E. New Jersey will use the $350,000 listed in H.R. 2847 to implement the Middle School Drug and Safety Prevention Program, ``Keepin' It Real'' which focuses on teaching middle school students how to resist peer pressure, avoid involvement in drugs, gangs and violence and live productive, meaningful lives. The funding will be used for officer training, workbooks, teachers books and materials, evaluation of the program, personnel, and general expenses such as printing, postage and travel associated with the training.

Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H. Smith

Bill Number: H.R. 2847

Account: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Operations, Research, and Facilities

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Monmouth University, 400 Cedar Avenue, West Long Branch, NJ 07764

Description of Request: The University's Resilient Coastal Urban Community and Ecosystem (RESCUE) Initiative will use the amount of $250,000 listed in H.R. 2847 to maintain and expand the water quality monitoring system, work directly with communities to implement cost- effective strategies for reducing pollution, restoring and protecting critical habitats that support resilient coastal ecosystems and communities and support the development of community strategies to adapt to coastal threats.

Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H. Smith

Bill Number: H.R. 2847

Account: Office of Justice Programs--Juvenile Justice

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: KidsBridge, 4556 S Broad Street, 2nd Floor, Trenton, NJ 08620

Description of Request: The KidsBridge program allows students the opportunity to participate in leadership training, violence prevention and gang resistance programs during and after school. Through mentors and academic programs, students will learn improved behaviors thereby reducing violent encounters and victimization. The amount of $90,000 listed in H.R. 2847 will be used to facilitate weekly youth meetings, materials and workbooks, evaluation, cultural and educational trips, healthy snacks for the students and staff salary.

Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H. Smith

Bill Number: H.R. 2847

Account: Office of Justice Programs--Byrne Discretionary Grants

Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: City of Trenton, 319 E State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608

Description of Request: The YouthStat program is a key component of the City of Trenton's ongoing efforts to develop and implement aggressive new strategies to effectively respond to the problems of gang violence in Trenton, New Jersey. The amount of $310,000 listed in H.R. 2847 will provide participants with customized community based programming including mentoring, work experience, life skills development, and recreation for juveniles who are at the highest risk for gang and criminal involvement.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as Ranking Member of the Africa Subcommittee, I joined several colleagues at an important Foreign Affairs Committee meeting with Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe.

It was an extraordinary opportunity to discuss Zimbambwe's progress towards democracy and away from dictatorship, hyperinflation, and multiple health crises, including cholera--and obtain a fuller understanding of what additional steps the U.S. can take to help.

That meeting, however, occurred at precisely the same time the House considered H. Res. 529, a resolution condemning the June 10th violent attack on the Holocaust Memorial Museum--a despicable anti-Semitic act that killed Officer Stephen Tyrone Johns. As so eloquently articulated by many colleagues yesterday, I--we--salute officer Johns for his bravery and courage and extend our deepest condolences to his family.

I rise today to not only express my support for H. Res 529 but also to thank my friend and colleague Mr. Klein for introducing it and for including me as a co-sponsor.

Mr. Speaker, the Holocaust Memorial Museum is a noble and vitally necessary attempt to remember and honor the victims of the Holocaust. The memorial itself is a witness to truth and promotion of human dignity and tolerance.

Wednesday's attack on that museum by a crazed, hate-filled gunman is yet another chilling reminder that our society still harbors a dangerous collection of bigots and racists who hate Jews.

Unparalleled since the dark days of the Second World War, Jewish communities around the world are facing violent attacks against synagogues, Jewish cultural sites, cemeteries and individuals. Anti- Semitism is an ugly reality that won't go away by ignoring or wishing it away. It must be combated with resolve and tenacity.

The sad deeply troubling reality is that James von Brunn cannot be dismissed as an aberration, but is connected to a whole hate-promoting movement that results in violence against Jews in America and around the world on practically a daily basis.

The Anti-Defamation League recently issued its annual Audit of Anti- Semitic Incidents. While the ADL is to be congratulated for its careful research on an unpleasant but absolutely necessary subject, the ugly facts that the report documents make for painful reading.

In 2008, the ADL noted 1,352 reported incidents of vandalism, harassment, and physical assaults on Jewish people or Jewish-owned property nationwide.

Sadly and shamefully, my own state of New Jersey had more reported anti-Semitic incidents--238--than any other state.

But the attack on the Holocaust Memorial Museum, Mr. Speaker, is the most ominous aspect of this wave of evil. The Holocaust Memorial Museum is a unique institution. It is a

memorial, a museum, a center of Holocaust scholarship, and a promoter of tolerance and preventer of genocide. It is a very powerful symbol of the solidarity of America with those murdered in the Holocaust, and with the Jewish people.

Mr. Speaker, at this critical moment we need government officials at all levels to denounce, without hesitation or delay, every anti-Semitic act wherever and whenever it occurs. No exceptions. At this moment, not to speak out enables the purveyors of hate. They never take a holiday or grow weary, nor should we.

Just as Mr. Brunn attacked the Holocaust Memorial Museum and murdered a courageous security officer tasked with its protection, Holocaust remembrance and tolerance education must dramatically expand, and we need to ensure that our respective laws punish those who hate and incite violence against Jews.

Finally, if we are to protect our children from the evil of anti- Semitism, we must reeducate ourselves and systematically educate our children. While that starts in our homes, the classroom must be the incubator of tolerance. It seems to me that only the most hardened racist can remain unmoved by Holocaust education and remembrance. Only the most crass, evil, and prejudiced among us can study the horrors of the Holocaust and not cry out: Never again!

Madam Speaker, yesterday, as ranking member of the Africa Subcommittee, I joined several colleagues at an important Foreign Affairs Committee meeting with Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe. It was an extraordinary opportunity to discuss Zimbabwe's progress towards democracy and away from dictatorship, its problems with hyperinflation, and multiple health crises, including cholera, and to obtain a fuller understanding of what additional steps the United States can take right now to help.

That meeting, however, occurred at precisely the same time that the House considered H. Res. 529, a resolution condemning the June 10th violent attack on the Holocaust Memorial Museum, a despicable anti- Semitic act that killed Officer Stephen Tyrone Johns. And as so eloquently articulated by so many of my colleagues yesterday during that debate, we salute Officer Johns for his bravery and his courage, and extend our deepest condolences to his family.

I rise today not only to express my support for H. Res. 529, but also to thank my good friend and colleague, Mr. Klein, for introducing it and for including me as a cosponsor.

Madam Speaker, the Holocaust Memorial Museum is a noble and vitally necessary attempt to remember and honor the victims of the Holocaust. The memorial itself is a witness to truth and the promotion of human dignity and tolerance.

Wednesday's attack on that museum by a crazed, hate-filled gunman is yet another chilling reminder that our society still harbors a dangerous collection of bigots and racists who hate Jews.

Unparalleled since the dark days of the Second World War, Jewish communities around the world are today facing violent attacks against synagogues, Jewish cultural sites, cemeteries and individuals. Anti- Semitism is an ugly reality that won't go away by ignoring it or by wishing it away. It must be combated with resolve and tenacity, and it must be defeated.

The sad and deeply troubling reality is that James von Brunn cannot be dismissed as an aberration, but is connected to a whole hate- promoting movement that results in violence against Jews in America and around the world on practically a daily basis.

The Anti-Defamation League recently issued its annual audit of anti- Semitic incidents. While the ADL is to be congratulated for its careful research on an unpleasant but absolutely necessary subject, the ugly facts that the report documents makes for painful reading.

In 2008, the ADL noted 1,352 reported incidents of vandalism, harassment, and physical assaults on Jewish people or Jewish-owned property nationwide. Sadly, and shamefully, my own State of New Jersey had more reported anti-Semitic incidents, 238, than any other State in the Union.

The attack on the Holocaust Museum is the most ominous aspect of this evil wave that we have seen worldwide and in our own country. The Holocaust Museum is a unique institution. It is a memorial, a museum, a center of Holocaust scholarship, and a promoter of tolerance and preventer of genocide. It is a very powerful symbol of the solidarity of America with those murdered in the Holocaust, and with the Jewish people as well.

Madam Speaker, at this critical moment, we need government officials at all levels to denounce, without hesitation or delay, every anti- Semitic act, wherever and whenever it occurs, no exceptions. At this moment, not to speak out enables the purveyors of hate. They never take a holiday. They never grow weary, nor should we.

Just as Mr. Brunn attacked the Holocaust Memorial Museum and murdered a courageous security officer tasked with its protection, Holocaust remembrance and tolerance education must dramatically expand, and we need to

ensure that our respective laws punish those who hate and incite violence against Jews.

Finally, if we are to protect our children from the evil of anti- Semitism, we must re-educate ourselves and systematically educate our children. While that starts at our homes, the classroom must be the incubator of tolerance as well. It seems to me that only the most hardened racist can remain unmoved by Holocaust education and remembrance. Only the most crass, evil and prejudiced among us can study the horrors of the Holocaust and not cry out: Never again!

I thank my good friend for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the rule.

Let me just say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, in the 1990s, I served as chairman of the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee, at first having served as ranking member to Tom Lantos. Then when the House went Republican, we switched and I became the chairman of that committee. And one of the responsibilities of that committee was to write the Foreign Relations Act, the State Department Reauthorization Act, for the country. And we worked very hard, Mr. Lantos and I, very diligently in crafting a bill that was, A, truly bipartisan and, B, open to virtually every amendment that Members wanted to offer.

I remember bringing a bill to the floor, Mr. Speaker, where every day Members just had to file their amendments in the Congressional Record, a preprinting requirement, so in the morning we would wake up and find out what amendments might be offered, and then we would deal and dispatch positively or negatively with those amendments. The process was open, transparent and fair.

Today we have a very much closed rule, except on matters where there is consensus. Sure, there are some Republican amendments. But on areas where there is significant and fundamental disagreement, especially an amendment that I had hoped to offer to authorize the office for Global Women's Issues, I had been precluded that opportunity. And I want to say to my colleagues I didn't do that when I chaired the subcommittee, and I worked very hard in a bipartisan way with my friends, and I do consider you on the other side of the aisle friends, to ensure that we all got to express our voice and vote on things that mattered, that we all had an opportunity to express ourselves.

In Committee, I offered an amendment to establish a Global Office on Women's Issues. It lost in a party-line vote. Every Democrat voted against it; every Republican voted for it. That legislation would have established a new Office for Global Women's Issues led by an ambassador-at-large, designed to coordinate and advise on activities, policies, programs, and funding related to women's empowerment internationally. The amendment would promote activities designed to expand educational opportunities and job training for women, equal pay for equal work, microfinancing and microenterprise programs for women, property inheritance rights for women, an improvement of maternal mortality, expand pregnancy care centers, combat forced abortions and forced sterilization, to enhance our efforts in the area of sex and labor trafficking particularly of women and other forms of violence against women, seeking an end to genital mutilation, stop child marriage, and promote changes in male attitudes and behavior that are detrimental to women. That was all prescribed in the legislation, and obviously other things could be included as well, consistent with core human rights norms that all human life, Mr. Speaker, is sacred and precious and worthy of protection regardless of age, sex, race, color, creed, disability, wantedness, or condition of dependency. My amendment sought to hold harmless unborn children and their mothers from the violence of abortion.

The Smith amendment is abortion neutral and states that the new office shall not engage in activities to author the laws or the policies of foreign countries with regard to how abortion is regulated or permitted. Abortion neutral. I would like it to be a pro-life office that says it time to empower and embrace and enfranchise unborn children.

I say to my colleagues, We live in 2009. We no longer have any doubts about the humanity of an unborn child. Unborn children are just like you and I except they're young, they're immature, and they're dependent. And their human rights are violated with impunity not just in this country but around the world. Sadly, the Obama administration, and I say this with great sadness, Mr. Obama is well on his way to becoming the abortion President. Virtually everything he has done through Executive order and through appointments and through other policies promote the killing of unborn children and the wounding of their mothers.

So I rise in opposition to this rule, Mr. Speaker. Whether this body chose to vote up or down on my amendment, we should have had the opportunity. It saddens me greatly because, again, I have great affection for the chairman, Chairman Berman, and for his staff, with whom I have worked very closely on human rights issues. This is a human rights issue.

There could be a consensus about the new office that's being created, that has already been created, and that this gives statutory affirmation to for women's issues. But, unfortunately, we will not have that opportunity.

I will remind my colleagues that Alveda King, Dr. Martin Luther King's niece--

Dr. Martin Luther King's niece, Alveda King, has had two abortions. She now heads up an organization called the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, and she speaks out and says that this is the new civil rights movement, protecting the unborn child but equally protecting women from abortion. It is violence against women. It is violence against children.

The new Global Office on Women's Issues ought to at least be neutral, I would say affirm the unborn but at least neutral when it comes to respecting unborn human life.

I thank my good friend for yielding.

I just want to say to my pro-life friends on the Democrat side of the aisle: think consequences.

In late April, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified one of our hearings--and this is the question I posed to her--Is the Obama administration

seeking in any way to weaken or to overturn pro-life laws and policies in African nations and in Latin American countries either directly through multilateral organizations, including the United Nations, the African Union or the Organization of American States, or by way of funding NGOs like Planned Parenthood?

Secretary of State Clinton answered that the administration was ``entitled'' to advocate abortion ``anywhere in the world.''

She also went on to redefine the words ``reproductive health,'' which are found in many documents and in many laws around the world, in a way completely contrary to the accepted definition by the previous administration and by many others to now include abortion. So every time you see those words now in a document, to the Clintons and to the Obamas, they mean ``abortion on demand.''

The Office of Global Women's Issues should be all about promoting human rights for women. Promoting violence against children and promoting the wounding of their mothers by advocating abortion is not human rights. It is the contrary. It is the exact opposite.

I hope my colleagues will realize that the amendment that my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Berman, is offering simply restates current law. It says the new office will follow the law. Did anybody expect that the office would not follow the law? Of course they would. Well, hopefully, they would.

We need to make sure, we need to ensure that this new office, which will be a command and control center, for women's rights and empowerment and not become an office for NARAL, for Planned Parenthood or for others in the promotion of child deaths around the world. Let's hold harmless the precious lives of unborn children. Let's mitigate maternal mortality and all of the other crises affecting women, not the killing of unborn babies.