Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 748 and the rule that we have in front of us this afternoon. I commend the sponsor of the legislation, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), for introducing this legislation, legislation of which I am a proud cosponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I find it unacceptable that under the current law any person in this country can take a pregnant minor to another State for the purpose of having an abortion without parents' knowledge and/or consent.

As the father of a teenage daughter myself, it is a frightening scenario. I am particularly happy to see that this bill will require abortion providers to inform a minor's parent or legal guardian within 24 hours before carrying out an abortion procedure.

Parental notification is not a new idea. I have three children, and my wife and I have to sign a parental consent form when our children go on a field trip. But what we are talking about today is the most serious of subjects, and I strongly believe no parent should find out after the fact that such a procedure has been performed on their child.

When it comes to such a serious medical procedure being performed on a minor, we cannot leave that notification up to a scared child. Every parent or legal guardian has a right to know, and this legislation ensures that right. I urge my colleagues to support the rule on H.R. 748 which ensures that right.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. And, yes, I say to the gentleman, they are from South Carolina, and I see them every day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today against the Pomeroy substitute and in full support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005.

The death tax defies common sense and is fundamentally unfair, Mr. Speaker. Prior to 2001, the top death tax rate was 55 percent. Today, the top rate is 47 percent, and these are unbelievably high tax rates, especially when the tax is imposed after a lifetime of hard work.

The death tax is also a job killer, Mr. Speaker. Resources that could be used to expand businesses and hire new employees are instead used inefficiently to plan for the impact of the death tax. The Joint Economic Committee noted that the death tax reduces the stock in the economy, listen to this now, approximately one-half of $1 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, the permanent repeal of the death tax will not only ensure that small businesses and family farms are not subject to these unfair rates of taxation, but also simplify the tax law and facilitate long-term financial planning. The 2010 sunset date for the death tax repeal makes it nearly impossible for taxpayers to make long-term financial decisions as they relate to the tax. Enactment of the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act promotes fairness and simplification by giving taxpayers the certainty they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Pomeroy substitute amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 135) providing for the establishment of a commission in the House of Representatives to assist parliaments in emerging democracies.

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

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

First, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) for introducing this legislation. I would also like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), our distinguished ranking Democrat member, as original co-sponsors.

Last week, the Committee on International Relations unanimously agreed to ask the chairman to seek immediate consideration of this resolution by the whole House under suspension of the rules. I would like to thank the leadership for moving so expeditiously to schedule this debate. I would also like to remember the role played by one of our long-time colleagues, the very distinguished gentleman from Nebraska, Doug Bereuter. Prior to his retirement last year after nearly 26 years in the House, Mr. Bereuter worked closely with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) on this initiative. Doug Bereuter was a strong believer in helping to spread democracy to former dictatorships, a mission that he has continued to champion in his new role as President of the Asia Foundation. His commitment to interparliamentary relations was underlined by his service as president of the 26-nation NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

This resolution, in part, is of his legacy of the House of Representatives and to the expansion of democracy around the world.

Mr. Speaker, in his second inaugural address, the President of the United States, Mr. Bush, declared: ``The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world . . . So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and the institutions in every nation and culture with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.''

The resolution before us would enable the House of Representatives to directly and personally answer the President's call to support the growth of democratic institutions in every nation. House Resolution 135 creates the House Democracy Assistance Commission. This commission will allow Members and staff of the House of Representatives to work directly with their counterparts in new democracies around the world to help those parliaments play an independent and substantive role in the legislative process and government oversight. This commission would build on the legacy of the Frost-Solomon task force of the 1990s when the House worked with democracies then emerging in Central and Eastern Europe, helping their parliaments become independent, effective legislatures.

Today, with democracies spreading throughout the world, the House Democracy Assistance Commission would allow Members to personally undertake what President Bush called ``the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments.'' Through the House Democracy Assistance Commission, Members and their staffs from the House of Representatives will personally advise their counterparts from the parliaments of new democracies around the world both in their home capitals and here in Washington. Many of these

parliaments need assistance in areas like committee operations, government oversight, constituent relations, parliamentary procedure, bill drafting, and establishment of research services and legislative information systems.

In addition, when the commission identifies needs in developing countries, it can recommend that the U.S. Agency for International Development provide office equipment for information technology to enable those parliaments to become more efficient and transparent. Creation of the House Democracy Assistance Commission will enable the House of Representatives to personally answer the President's call to support the growth of democratic institutions in every nation.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), sponsor of H. Res. 135, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 101) urging the European Union to add Hezbollah to the European Union's wide-ranging list of terrorist organizations, as amended.

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

extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 101.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 101 urges the European Union to add Hezbollah to its terrorist list. I strongly support this measure, which was passed by voice vote during a subcommittee mark-up and by unanimous consent before the full Committee on International Relations.

Hezbollah is a Lebanon-based extremist organization that has a network of cells located throughout the world. Its primary sources of political, financial, and organizational support stem from Iran and Syria. According to the most recent State Department ``Patterns of Global Terrorism Report,'' Hezbollah is dedicated to the elimination of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic theocracy in Lebanon. Hezbollah is also a strong supporter of the Syrian presence in that country, a position clearly at odds with both the desires of the international community and the Lebanese people.

Hezbollah has been known or suspected to have been involved in numerous terrorist attacks against Americans, including the suicide truck bombing of the United States Embassy and the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and the embassy annex in Beirut in 1984. Three members of Hezbollah are on the FBI's list of the 22 most wanted persons for the hijacking of a TWA flight in which an American Navy diver was killed. Elements of the terrorist organization have also been involved in the kidnapping of Americans and other Westerners.

In past years, Hezbollah has increasingly supported groups that have already been designated by the EU as terrorist organizations. It defies logic that the EU would classify these other groups as terrorist organizations and not include Hezbollah, a group that is among the most lethal terrorist organizations in the world.

The manager's amendment includes changes based on comments received on the resolution from the State Department and some changes communicated to me by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Europe of the House Committee on International Relations. The amendment is designed to clarify some of the language contained in H. Res. 101. In addition, the amendment adds a clause recognizing that the European Parliament voted on March 10 on a resolution that stated that ``clear evidence exists of terrorist activities on the part of Hezbollah'' and that the Council of the EU ``should take all the necessary steps to curtail them.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) for introducing H. Res. 101. This legislation has strong bipartisan support with over 70 co-sponsors. I urge the passage of this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the author of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations of the Committee on Government Reform.

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

Madam Speaker, in the past few years, we have witnessed an explosion of interstate class-action lawsuits being filed in our State courts, particularly in certain ``magnet'' jurisdictions. These ``magnet'' courts routinely approve settlements in which lawyers receive large fee awards and the class members receive virtually nothing. The result is a growing number of class-action lawsuits that are losing propositions for everyone involved, except the lawyers that bring them.

Madam Speaker, later this morning, we will be debating the Class Action Fairness Act. This legislation closes a loophole in the system by creating Federal jurisdictions over large, multi-State class-action cases. It puts an end to various tricks currently used by some lawyers to stay out of Federal court. And, in addition, this legislation creates several provisions specifically designed to ensure that class members, not their attorneys, are the primary beneficiaries of the class-action process.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this common sense, bipartisan plan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Boy Scouts of America and their right to congregate in facilities such as military bases. It has been a long tradition within the organization that the Scouts work hand in hand with local communities which includes cooperation with agencies such as the Armed Forces. The Boy Scouts of America have been promoting courage, self- reliance, and family virtues throughout this country for almost a century.

The Boy Scouts have always held a special place in my heart because in 1951, my father started Boy Scout Troup 108--the first Boy Scout organization in Westminster, SC. As a matter of fact, one of the first service projects of this troop was to raise the American Flag over the Westminster Post Office. We see Boy Scout troops perform similar patriotic acts throughout the country yet they are denied the right to come together on our military bases. That just doesn't make sense.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in showing support for an organization that has done countless good deeds in each of our communities and pass H. Con. Res. 6.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, it was not long ago I was wandering the halls of the Capitol, we call it Capitol Hill, trying to figure out what the heck was going on. But when I arrived, I found that D.C. was very warm and welcoming.

This week it is my turn to extend a warm welcome to the freshman class of the 109th Congress. And what an exciting time for all of them. I think they will find, as I did, that their classmates will fast become close and trusted friends.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to talk tonight specifically about two new Members from my so-called neck of the woods, Virginia Foxx and my dear friend Bob Inglis.

Before I welcome this first person to Congress, though, let me make just a brief comment and give my heartfelt congratulations to her predecessor, Senator-elect Richard Burr. Richard's office has been around the corner from mine for the past 2 years, and I want to thank him personally and all his staff for all they have done for me over the

last 2 years. He has become a good friend, and I look forward to continuing working with him in the future.

Virginia Foxx was elected by the people of the Fifth Congressional District in North Carolina to succeed the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

She served as a State senator for five terms. Prior to election to the State Senate she served as president and consultant at Mayland Community College. She was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to the Education Advisory Committee and has served as a consultant for the U.S. Department of Education.

As a former small business owner and running a family business myself, I am pleased to say that Representative-elect Foxx and her husband, Tom, own and operate Grandfather Mountain Nursery. I believe that the perspective that a small business owner brings to the Congress is quite unique, Madam Speaker. I look forward to working with Dr. Foxx to bring a more commonsense business approach to our everyday work here on Capitol Hill.

The next gentleman, Madam Speaker, is from my home State of South Carolina. He is a good man, and he has been a dear friend of mine for years. Mr. Bob Inglis. Bob actually served from the Fourth Congressional District in Congress from 1993 to 1998. After leaving Congress, Bob returned to the firm where he had worked from 1986 to 1992, Leatherwood, Walker, Todd and Mann. It is a pleasure for me to welcome Bob back and his lovely wife, Mary Anne, and their children to the United States Congress.

I look forward to working closely with Bob on issues important to South Carolinians and all Americans, such as homeland security, strong national defense, individual freedom and strong families, which I know Bob is a very strong proponent of.

I would also be remiss, Madam Speaker, if I did not extend congratulations to Bob's predecessor and a dear trusted friend of mine, Senator-elect Jim DeMint. Jim served the people of the Fourth Congressional District well, and he has always put their needs and the needs of our State and Nation ahead of politics. And I know he will continue to do the same as South Carolina's next junior Senator.

Madam Speaker, it is always humbling to walk the Halls of Congress and stand on the floor of the people's House. Again, I want to congratulate these incoming Members and I look forward to serving with them. I know they will do a fantastic job.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), for their strong leadership and hard work to ensure our national defense continues to be second to none in the world.

I would like to particularly thank and acknowledge their invaluable assistance, as well as that of the conferees and their staffs, including Bill Ostendorf and Hugh Brady, for their efforts and long hours to finalize the important details in section 3116 of the conference report to H.R. 4200.

This section allows the Department of Energy to fully process harmful nuclear waste currently being stored in aging tanks at DOE sites in Idaho and South Carolina in a timely and cost-effective manner that protects the environment.

I have no doubt that section 3116 provides the necessary and proper protections for my constituents in South Carolina because it requires the DOE to follow objective performance criteria and to continue to work with State authorities to ensure cleanup standards are strictly followed.

Again, I wish to thank the distinguished chairman for working with members of the South Carolina delegation, including Senator Lindsey Graham, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), and particularly my colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), to provide a safe and cost-effective means to protect our environment and communities from dangerous nuclear wastes. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report to H.R. 4200.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in full support of the amendment offered by my good friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) because it allows us to help those in need while at the same time requires us to be fiscally responsible.

My heart goes out to the folks of Florida and everybody that has been affected by hurricanes. My prayers and my thoughts are with them. There is no doubt they have been through a horrible ordeal, and they need our help, and they will get it. But in doing so, we must make sure that we can pay the bill.

This amendment would fully offset the cost of the $10.9 billion supplemental through a rescission in the FY 2005 discretionary spending, once enacted. Funding for defense, homeland security and veterans would be specifically exempt. We must look at the bottom line, and we have to start today making sound fiscal decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring that the Federal Government helps those in need today, but in a responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker, I was delayed in my district yesterday in order to attend services for Staff Sergeant Tony B. Oleas, a soldier from Westminster, South Carolina who was killed while fighting for our country in Afghanistan on September 20th, and I unfortunately missed 3 recorded votes on the House floor.

I ask that the Record reflect that had I not been detained in my district, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 473 (Pelosi motion to instruct conferees to H.R. 4200, the Defense Authorization bill); ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 474 (motion to close portions of the conference on H.R. 4200, the Defense Authorization bill); and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 475 (S. 2363 to revise and extend the Boys and Girls Club of America).

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will debate and vote on the marriage protection amendment. Let us be clear, the debate today is not about denying anyone's rights. This is about ensuring the will of the people and protecting it. Forty-four States have already enacted laws defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman. South Carolina is one of these 44 States. The people of my State have already decided how they would like for marriage to be defined. So as a Representative I am wondering why the will of my constituents and that of over 70 percent of Americans nationwide should be tossed aside because of a few activist judges because they disagree.

Unfortunately, a handful of judges have already begun to amend our Constitution. They have circumvented the democratic process with their rulings. Therefore, the decision we are left with now is not whether the Constitution will be amended but who will amend it: activist judges or the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me today in supporting the marriage protection amendment. It is time we get the debate back where it belongs, with the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will debate and vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment. And let us be clear. This debate today is not about denying anyone rights. This is ensuring that the will of the people is protected.

My home State of South Carolina is one of 44 States that has already enacted laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. They voted, and they decided how marriage should be defined. So I stand here today as their representative, wondering why that will and that the will of over 70 percent of Americans nationwide should be tossed aside because a few activist judges disagree.

Unfortunately, as we stand here today, we are faced with the fact that a handful of these judges have taken it upon themselves to hand down rulings that in effect amend the Constitution of the United States. They have circumvented the democratic process with their rulings. Therefore, the decision we are now left with is not whether the Constitution will be amended but who will amend it, activist judges or the American people.

Every American should have the opportunity to vote on this important issue. The institution of marriage deserves protection. It is our most basic social institution for protecting children. Preserving it sends a message to our children about marriage and traditional family life and values.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me today in supporting the marriage protection amendment. It is time to get the debate back where it belongs, with the American people.

Mr. Speaker, as a father of three teenage children, I understand the importance of keeping our streets free of violence. And as a gun owner and sportsman, I also understand the importance of the rights afforded to Americans by the second amendment. The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act protects our citizens while also protecting the constitutional rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia to own rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

H.R. 3193 would not affect any law directed at true criminal conduct. As a matter of fact it would leave in place strict penalties for gun possession by criminals and for violent crime committed with guns. I firmly believe banning a firearm is not the answer to preventing crime. Interestingly enough, the District of Columbia has some of the most restrictive gun laws in our Nation. Yet, at the same time, recent FBI figures show that the District has regained its former title as the murder capital of the United States.

As a matter of fact, according to U.S. Justice Department figures, Washington, DC, has been the ``murder capital of the country'' for 14 of the last 15 years. And currently, the DC homicide rate is nearly five times greater than the national average. This escalating murder rate began only after the DC Council deprived law-abiding citizens of the right to defend themselves and their families by effectively banning handguns and other firearms in 1976. I believe it is only by strictly enforcing laws to prosecute those who misuse a gun in the commission of a crime that we can ensure our families remain safe from those who would prey on the innocent, and that the rights of law- abiding Americans are protected.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3193 and allow law abiding people to use guns to protect their homes and families, essentially stating that DC citizens would enjoy the same self-defense rights as residents of the 50 States.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, exactly what we are talking about is limiting the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and let me just read my colleagues a couple of things. According to constitutional experts, under article III of the Constitution, Congress clearly has the ability to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review certain cases. Now, this is satisfied by constitutional experts, and who are these constitutional experts? Well, justices of the Supreme Court.

In the decision Wiscart v. Dauchy, the Court ruled, ``If Congress has provided no rule to regulate our proceedings, we cannot exercise appellate

jurisdiction; and if the rule is provided, we cannot depart from it.''

Let me read another decision, Martin v. Hunters' Lessee. The Court ruled, ``Congress is able to regulate and restrain appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court as public necessity requires.''

And one last decision, United States v. Bitty. The Court ruled, ``Congress holds the wisdom and authority to establish exceptions and regulations concerning the court's appellate jurisdiction.''

What we are doing here, I say to my colleagues, is letting our State courts take a look at this and not Federal activist judges.

Let us leave these decisions up to our State courts and not our Federal court system. Let us not gut the Sensenbrenner amendment, and I urge Members to vote no against the Watt amendment.

Mr. Speaker, marriage goes to the heart of our families and our society. My home State of South Carolina is one of at least 42 States that have laws on the books defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These laws were passed by the State legislature; those elected to represent the views of their constituents. My constituents contact me on a daily basis about this one issue more than any other issue. They want me to ensure marriage between a man and a woman is preserved.

Yet some in this country, elected by no one, believe they have the right to supercede the wishes of my constituents and the constituents of other members here today.

I respectfully disagree. I believe the only way to ensure court action does not override State law is for the House and Senate to take action. I thank Mr. Hostettler for bringing this legislation to the floor of the people's house for debate, it is time we, as elected officials, have an opportunity to give a voice to our constituents' concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to vote in favor of H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act and protect the sanctity of marriage.